Colonies and Revolution: Total War

I was going to post a poll on what Total War should be next, but this has been done recently. Well, I think the 16th-18th century is perfect. So I thought I would post some ideas and see what my fellow Orgers thought.

First, consider the applicability to the series. It is a time of changing tactics in warfare, where the musket and early rifle has taken center stage. Armies form in line, there is no advanced artillery or flight yet. Thus, it would be a logical next step in the series. It is obvious the IMperial Glory was a strategic move made to replicate and undermine Creative Assembly's success. IG got some things right, but overall it was dissatisfying. Now I don't want to start a discussion on IG. That belongs in the Arena. Instead I will just post some concepts:

An expanded world map, to include Eastern North and South America, a good part of Africa, and much of the east. During this period, colonization by europe spread throughout the world, and much of the warfare was related to conflicts in colonization. There are also tremendous opportunities for new factions, civil wars, and other changes in the political dynamic: English civil war, American independence, French revolution, etc.

Now consider this next concept carefully. In BI, our barbarian friends can "horde", just pack up and move. What if we expand that concept to colonization and new cities/regions? There could be pre-designated regions outlined with a "slot" available for someone to fill as a colony. So, for example, england expands into North America where the player finds an empty region, borders are predefined but unavailable to see. Once the player locates the "slot" where a colony could be placed, the horde concept of BI is used to occupy the region, establish a new city, and fill the "slot". Once this occurs, the region's borders are shown. This would allow for the player to engage in exploration, fight over available colony slots, etc. This would not be limited to America, but would include africa, the carribean, south america, and parts of the middle east and orient as well. From a developer standpoint, the region/slot concept would be more easily achieved because the slot is simply an existing city devoid of population and buildings. Its view on the map would be a defined drawing similar to a city, only it would be a grassy field or something. It capitalizes on the existing code of "hording" used in BI. It also solves for issues that would occur from a player choosing the city site for himself.

So how to deal with indigenous tribes that existed prior to colonization:
1. put them in the slot ( which is boring and doesn't really achieve the concept of discovering a new location. remember that the region's boundaries would be hidden to the player until he establishes a colony).
2. Keep them as rebels, but without a city and without the ability to colonize.
3. A combination of the two. Most tribes would be free floating, but establish one or two strong points throughout the world. Leave the borders unknown until the player razes the city and occupies it.(mayan and azteks are good examples if CA wants to expand the map this far)


So this is the basic concept. What do you guys all think?

i hope they could get a world war total war.

Thank you for your input Umeu, but what do you think about THIS idea?

its oke, but it still has limitations. i mean the "colonisation slots" could be anywhere. provinces/regions werent really anywhere but in europe. how would you display germany and italy. spain was already powerfull at that time with colonies around the world.i think the date should be from around 1480 to 1780 (columbus to american revolution)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1

its oke, but it still has limitations. i mean the "colonisation slots" could be anywhere.

---

That is the point!

Quote:

---

provinces/regions werent really anywhere but in europe.

---

But yet we have borders/regions in MTW and RTW? I mean that was all vague and irrelevant anyway. The real point is to establish an area from where the settlement draws its resources and to define the borders of whom own the land: The city is the central point of the region. Hell, you could make borders an eventuality, say when the city hits a certain size. That isn't a bad idea. That way the controlling faction doesn't get the benefit of borders until then (and borders need to be more important anyway. Their is little consequence for crossing a border at this point).

Quote:

---

how would you display germany and italy.

---

Wasn't germany divided into smaller nations anyway: prussia and austria as an example, or something else?

Quote:

---

spain was already powerfull at that time with colonies around the world.i think the date should be from around 1480 to 1780 (columbus to american revolution)

---

Works for me.

I think a TW version of the game 1503 AD without all of the micromanagement that is present in that game would be very cool.

:duel:

...Although I doubt we will see a TW game that has undefined territories, which is what we would need for a game set in the 'Age of Discovery'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Magnus

...Although I doubt we will see a TW game that has undefined territories, which is what we would need for a game set in the 'Age of Discovery'.

---

I see your point, but you are wrong on this my friend. The territories ARE defined, but they are unrevealed until a certain event, be it colonization or city size, etc.

Why this? I'll elaborate:

Imagine landing your small army in South Africa or elsewhere. You see no borders, there is no territory ownership, but you DO see some of things the land has to offer: Iron, gold, amazing new resources that will make your faction rich! But wait, are all of these resources in one territory? You push inland and discover two different "colonization slots" or whatever they will be named. You know it is expensive as hell to colonize, so you leave your army there to defend your new found spot while you wait for your colonists to arrive. When they do, you pick a spot and set it up. One of two options then happen, depending on which direction the developers take the game:
(1) your land claim is made and the boundaries of the region are revealed. You now know the limits to your land and its benefits. You also have a greater understanding of what that neighboring colonization spot has to offer, encouraging you to continue your expansion.
(2) Your land claim is made and you begin recieving the fruits of the land (gold, tradeable goods, whatever). But you do not have borders yet, because the future of the colony is uncertain and their is insufficient political clout to establish borders. Once your city reaches a certain size, it's future is assured unless it is conquered. But either way, at this point your borders are revealed and you get the bonuses that having borders grant (such as a diplomacy option to demand invaders get out or else, or an option to grant a right of passage).

Either way, there are great benefits to this, especially for huge land claims. It make it harder to pinpoint the perfect spot to form a colony becasue you have to find it (and you have no borders to help outline the region).

Any CA developers have time to comment on this? Is this even a possibility or are there severe coding restrictions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Magnus

I think a TW version of the game 1503 AD without all of the micromanagement that is present in that game would be very cool.

---

The micro management is one of the best parts, mainstreamer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

The micro management is one of the best parts, mainstreamer.

---

Well, I quite enjoyed playing that game for a while (1503 A.D.).

But there's only so much wood chopping, stone cutting, and hide tanning I care to do.

In the end it is like a version of Sim City where you get to shoot cannons and attack other ships. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I see your point, but you are wrong on this my friend. The territories ARE defined, but they are unrevealed until a certain event, be it colonization or city size, etc.

---

Wait a second. I'm not wrong. We're discussing what we would like in a TW series based in the age of discovery.

Your idea was pre-defined territories, mine is open-ended.

Personally, the idea of having pre-defined territories in a game where the whole point is to strike out and found civilizations based on Western Culture where none have ever existed would seem very unrealistic to me.

The best way to go IMHO would be to allow you to establish new settlements, and your horizons would broaden as your settlements expanded. As long as I don't have to chop wood and catch fish, of course. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Magnus

The best way to go IMHO would be to allow you to establish new settlements, and your horizons would broaden as your settlements expanded. As long as I don't have to chop wood and catch fish, of course. ~D

---

I agree with you. This would be excellent. There are inherent problems with this though. First of all, consider the AI. It just might park his colony right next to yours. What happens to the region border then? And what is to stop you from doing the same thing? The preplanned colony space prevents this and allows the current engine to be used. I strongly suspect that RTW is practice for the next TW game. It is safe to assume that we will see one more game and expansion before CA decides to change the engine. They did the same thing with STW and MTW, making most of the modifications to units, AI, the map, and so on. Bu the engine was the same.

You are essentially arguing a TW/Civilization/Rise of Nations type mix here. It would be cool, but don't expect it in the next game since it requires excessive coding.

Would any mighty CA reps like to comment, please?

On a completely different note....what about......warring state dynasty in ancient china? You have all the corruption and internecine warfare you want, people are destroyed just to rise again, plus you have master strategists as well. Oh yes, did i forget that basically every one of the main states has the same technology? Makes or some exciting play!
just a thought....

Uhm. Welcome to the Org. Thanks for posting. But what do you think about THIS idea. THIS one. Not yours. THIS one.

Yararraghghhhhhhhh!!!!

YES THIS ONE.


My FIRST SENTENCE was:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I was going to post a poll on what Total War should be next, but this has been done recently.

---

So what do you think about THIS idea?

I like it so much could happen like a protugeese canada or a british brazil the possibilities are endless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcus aquila

On a completely different note....what about......warring state dynasty in ancient china? You have all the corruption and internecine warfare you want, people are destroyed just to rise again, plus you have master strategists as well. Oh yes, did i forget that basically every one of the main states has the same technology? Makes or some exciting play!
just a thought....

---

I've already played this and loved it. Romance of the Three Kingdoms (c. 1988), set in Han China. Played it on my brand new "Turbo" XT with the 30 MB hard drive. :bow:

I suspect a TW version would be a bit more "developed." Though, to be fair, it was a pretty good strategy game, even if the battles were a bit limited. Seemed incredible to an AH wargamer though.

You're right, it makes a wonderful "natural" setting for this kind of game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

I like it so much could happen like a protugeese canada or a british brazil the possibilities are endless

---

Yaaaaay!!!! ~:cheers:

i have tought allot of times about a mix of eu2 and total war.
even tough i know it will be something different i would be happy if that would be posible.
if been hoping for a long time that ca would make a game with a world map.

I don't think I'd enjoy a world-scale game, or even the expanded map proposed in the original post. The problem is that CA doesn't have infinite time and resources, to develop something as rich as RTW at "ground level" for the whole world, or even a large chunk of it.... which is what you'd need for this colonization idea.

I love seeing all the detailed differences between units and buildings from different cultures in RTW. It helps with immersion, and keeps me interested. If CA tried to model a larger part of the world's geography and local cultures, then (given fixed programming and art resources) it seems to me that we'd see a lot more generic units.... just a few Amerindian tribes in North America, for example, instead of the huge number of actual tribes in the area, all with unique cultural differences and styles of combat. Same thing with Africa, or the Caribbean. Sure, it would be an amazing game if they *could* model the whole world at RTW's level of detail. But I don't think we want to be waiting 10 years for the next version of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1

i hope they could get a world war total war.

---

That makes no sense given the tactical engine and the scale of battles in either WW1 or 2. The tactical engine is for relatively small, set piece battles, not battle fronts covering tens of miles with artillery that can fire from 5-20 miles away. The engine just isn't capable of handling modern warfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grifman

That makes no sense given the tactical engine and the scale of battles in either WW1 or 2. The tactical engine is for relatively small, set piece battles, not battle fronts covering tens of miles with artillery that can fire from 5-20 miles away. The engine just isn't capable of handling modern warfare.

---

I think that this could be possible, but not with the current engine. There is just far too much individual tactical manuever in modern warfare.

i dont think there will be a world war total war. whats about all the planes and the artillery mentioned before? even if such an engine could be created, it wouldnt fit in the concept of total war. but i like the idea of a game, based in the 18th-19th century even though a full scale world map would be much too complex...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grifman

That makes no sense given the tactical engine and the scale of battles in either WW1 or 2. The tactical engine is for relatively small, set piece battles, not battle fronts covering tens of miles with artillery that can fire from 5-20 miles away. The engine just isn't capable of handling modern warfare.

---

no sense, dreams never make sense. its my dream my hope and one day it will come. :bow:

I think, or at least hope, that they'll make a game covering 1500 to 1918 AD, from the first muskets and colonization to the Napoleonic period, the revolutions and later colonization and then the beginning of trench warfare. It would be something that the gaming industry hasn't created yet. I certainly hope they add 3d player-controlled naval battles too - in the beginning of the era with galleys and boardings along with carracks and similar with early cannons. The battle of Lepanto would nice to play (the battle of Sluys wouldn't be bad either, although it was much earlier, back in approximately 1337 or something like that)...

Or alternatively they could make Medieval: Total War 2, with naval battles and better diplomacy and AI than in R:TW, and with more factions.

CA just has to do this time period! They Just have to!

*Stamps feet* ~:mecry: ~:mecry: