After Rome Total War?

My votes, in order of preference:

1. Ancient Art of War: Total War
This could be a lot more than just China - include Korea, the Khmer, India, etc. And it could span a huge range of time, or not. I don't mind either way, but it would have a huge variety of units whether or not it was over a large period of time.

2. Medieval (or Dark Ages, for a different name): Total War
'Nuff said.

3. Napoleonic: Total War (1700s to 1800s)
This could work very well. Includes Napoleonic, American Revolution, American Civil War, lots of other wars... Many units would be musketeers, but you'd have different types of weapons, different tactics available (some standing in lines, some hiding like the Americans did in the Revolution). You'd have some cavalry. You'd have the infantry sometimes rushing with bayonets, and sometimes you'd have peasants with pitchforks, etc, or you'd have some elite units who used up their bullets and had sabers. You could incorporate more ship battles if you want more unit variety, and allow units to board ships.

It's sad people haven't actually seen napoleonic era warfare in action in the few movies that showcase it... then they would understand how stupid it was :D

The winner - Done already

Second place - Done already

Third place - please see the many previous posts about how inappropriate this idea is .

I am gonna keep shouting it out ~:idea: Fantasy Total War ~:idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nobody You'd Know

3. Napoleonic: Total War (1700s to 1800s)
This could work very well. Includes Napoleonic, American Revolution, American Civil War, lots of other wars... Many units would be musketeers, but you'd have different types of weapons, different tactics available (some standing in lines, some hiding like the Americans did in the Revolution). You'd have some cavalry. You'd have the infantry sometimes rushing with bayonets, and sometimes you'd have peasants with pitchforks, etc, or you'd have some elite units who used up their bullets and had sabers. You could incorporate more ship battles if you want more unit variety, and allow units to board ships.

---

Although including the late 1800s would be a mistake. All of those nasty modern weapons used in WW1 were around in the late 1800s, there was just no big war to test them out in. Machineguns etc would completely ruin the total war regiment-based combat style.

I think that 1550-1850 would be a good timeframe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Debaser85

I can't see any Total Wars set in modern times working. Warfare has changed so radically. You couldn't have the epic battles that the Total War series is famous for, and keep the realism.

Infantry tactics have changed beyond recognition. You don't move units made of hundreds of men around the battlefield, they are split into small groups of mixed unit fire teams who scurry around the battlefield doing their best to avoid heavy armour and just direct air and artillery strikes, then moving in once the area is clear. How is the player going to direct dozens, maybe hundreds of fire teams around a map, while simultaneously directing artillery, tanks and aircraft?

Heavy armoured units don't move in blocks of a hundred either. They are spread out over miles of ground, are we the player going to have to click and move every single one? What about the battles like Kursk with thousands of tanks? even if that was scaled down to just a few hundred tanks on each side it would be far too difficult, as it would require having to control each one.

Games like Sudden Strike got round this by only having relatively small battles with rarely more than a dozen tanks. It was never two huge armies meeting each other! If the game is to live up to its 'Total War' tag with a campaign map where you coordinate entire armies, then that's what it would have do, and entire armies facing off against each other is impossible!


My own preference would be either MTW2 or a Napoleonic TW.

---

Hmmm..

First.. tanks don't fight individually, they fight in fireteams.. and it seems like the TW engine does teams fairly well.

True.. infantry doesn't fight standing in straight lines anymore, but team cohesiveness at the platoon/squad level is very important to success.. so again.. we are talking teams.. not individuals.

Right now the engine doesn't have the concept of 'digging in'.. i.e. fighting from hand prepared defenses like foxholes and the like.. so that would have to be added to allow things to work well.

Modern infantry fights best from trees and cover.. these things are actually modeled in the engine, although I would argue that some things could be modeled better.

I don't think the engine is as 'off' as you make it seem. Modern armies still fight in teams, and maneuver as teams. And this is what is modeled in the TW engine.

Neat dressed lines and ranks? no. But teams, sure!

The major issue with the TW engine isn't that the warfare style can't be modeled, its the distances involved. Artillery fires over distances measured in multiple kilometers, modern armor engages at about 2 km, and modern infantry engages at about 1/2 km. So there is a vast array of equipment with very different engagement distances all cooperating. This would be a challenge in the TW engine, but I can see how to provide some of it.

To be honest, the RTS games that model armor warfare as individually moveable tanks has always seemed bogus to me. It might be fun from a game perspective, but it certainly doesn't match reality very well.

TheDuck, I'm not really saying that the RTW engine couldn't handle it, though it most probably couldn't, but rather that a game like this just couldn't be made along the same lines as STW, MTW and RTW. I'll try to explain myself better this time.

In these older battles which we simulate the entire army was packed in close together. Battle lines could stretch for a few miles and were very inflexible, everyone was facing the enemy, lined up and ready to just march forward. They would meet, fight and one side would win. Because of the time and difficulty in raising an army, the outcome of the battle could end the whole conlict itself. The victor could march into the capital city and declare it and the surrounding provinces his.


In comparison, WW2 was made up of tens of thousands of different engagements happening all over the world simultaneously. Unlike hundreds of years ago where moving soldiers and reinforcing armies was one hell of task, we could now do it in a matter of days, by plane or by ship. An army made up of 30,000 men a thousand years ago might be in a line a mile long, an army of 30,000 men now would be spread out over 30 miles - and that's a conservative estimate! Fighting could go on for days, weeks or even months with each side simply replacing their losses. See how this wouldn't work? Currently in Total War, we build up armies, march them into an enemy province, meet the enemy army, then either win or lose in the space of one battle. Nice and easy, but it wouldn't work in the modern era as wars just aren't fought like that.


Anyway what would the goal of modern, say WW2 Total War game be? Imperialism had ended, so what would the goal of the campaign be? I think it would be unrealistic to pick a nation and try to conquer the world with it.

Hopefully you get a better understanding of what I mean! ~:)

Quote:

---

Origionally posted by Unseen Potato
I dont think Activision even will consider the American civalwar. It would have been an incredible dull game.

There would only be three diffrent base units.Cavalry, Infantry and artilliry. The only variation would be units armed with diffrent weapons. pluss that it would only be 2 playable factions, that were very similar to eachother (It was Americans fighting Americans you know)

And the War lasted just for 4 years. I dont see How this is gonna work with the total war strategy map. The seasons would have to be VERY short, and the whole province thing wouldnt work.

And what would the name of the game be???? The American Cival War: total war????

The American cival war as totalwar game is a stupid unrealistic idea.

A total war game Cant be based on a war. It has to be based on a Time period.

---

I & many others enjoy the American Cival War, i only suggested it as it is something i enjoy so put it forward. And to be honest i couldnt care if you like it or not, it was just a suggestion, get over it ~:joker:

Okey

I like to go skiing. What about making skiing: total war???

I know lets have a Flaming TotalWar where we just flame other patrons debating over what the next series should be.Then CA can have there laughs in over all the insults we gave them over the past 2 years. It does'nt matter what CA wants to make, its what Activision(less) will tell them to make and if they make anything else they do'nt get a paycheck. I feel that CA has very little say on what they produce and Activision(less) tells them what the For Unlawful Carnage to Knowledge to do. Just look at Viking Invasion they did'nt want horns on the Vikings helmits but what did Activision(less) make them do ---- dangit hollywoodize the game----- money money money. CA did we mention all we care about is ---- um let me think here money


CA " but ummm----" Activision " money "

CA " but um------" Activision " money"'

CA " but ummm----" Activision " money "

CA "let me get this right we should shove money up your donkey"

Activision " yes but watch your vocabulary "

CA " k you want money so you can get hot chicks even though you ca'nt serve the whole enchilada "

Activision " what does it matter to you we are still getting laid "

CA " so are we why do'nt you ask your wife "

Activision " shut-up and just get us more money so we can at least have our arrogance"

CA " ok we will get you your money...... and we will shut up and so will your wife so we can pretend life is all peaches and cherries.....


..... a long pause

This is total war (from that bald headed freak from MTW)




It does'nt matter what us fans want but it boils down to what the masses want .............


hmmm and for those historical nitpickers that say Gladiator was co0mplete BS

(welll let me try to rephrase a quote from that movie) (although I think I will buthcher it)

No he knows exactly what he is doing ........... please the mob and you have total(war) control of rome

(Unfamous qotes from oaty) Please the gamers and you have total(war) control of the market.

Well anyways I give STW an A+++ considering its time period (the game was developed and the resources they had) and MTW an A (Yes improved gameplay but it had some country music in ....... 1 step forward and 2 steps back)

And then RTW comes along with all theses great improvementsand yet failing in some perspectives. But what does that matter they are still appeasing the mob.

Oh sure they implement all these realistic features of ambush and all this other greatness but when the units are a max of 200( to me as far as it seems)---------- that ambush probably does'nt matter because if your forces hold long enough to allow the ambush it does'nt matter because thay are already routing and all they are doing is killing further competition against the empire(against you completing the game sooner) Where as realistic would be------ would your 10,000 peasants on that right flank hold off 10,000 professional soldiers on that flank to allow your ambush to sandwich them and eliminate any further resistance, or if they route kill all chances of success and your professional soldiers march off the filed to save there own butts.

Realistic would be huge units (wich so far CA or Activision has refused to implement) holding the line while hopefully your tactical maneuver is the decisive factor of wether you win or lose. I know theres been talk about cannae on how Hannibal did the impossible(and gamers would just love to reproduce this event) and if they programmed the game realistically this would actually be possible but MTW lacks the resources (wich I understand) and so does RTW but maybe they looked the wrong direction and went for graphics (Sorrry graphical designers your work is great but when it comes to war I do'nt care what the enemy looks like I want them fricken dead). War is war and whoever beat me to the signature it does'nt matter ----------war is not about who is right but who is left deserves a beer, heck I'm being cheap how about a years supply of it.

Anyways of course its just a video game and of course no matter how historically they make it does need some arcade style to it otherwise who wants to spend a real 3 days marching to a confrontation only to massacre the enemy. The point is I ONLY bought into the TotalWar series because I thought I would be commanding huge armies slaughtering barbarians( oh wait I'm a descendant of a barbarian tribe(OK just putting there barbarian tribes in place), while commanding huge armeis and actually having decisive factors in the battle ....... not my 1000 elite men slaughtered all your men and there reenforcements because this arcade game is so enjoyable....... I want all men on the battlefield holding out for reenforcements or running away so they can once again use there pitchforks to get hay imto the barn.


Anyways I do have to try out some of those competitor games wehre they seem to actually have tons of men on the battle field and maybe they actually hold off long enough for a major maneuver. Hmmm and some people actrually pick on those games because of there graphics..... Maybe RTW does have some competition...... but after playing the demo and seeing the "arcade units of no more than 200 men maybe RTW has hit the dumps for a few -------- hopefully I will find them more enjoyable and there will be a mor realistalicle feel to warfare....... yes I watched a games trailer that someone posted in the Colisseum but if its true to its trailer and the men do'nt walk and kill as fast as they do then i give it a big plus because i hate the factor of the pause button its a biog cheat that is thrown in that makes gamers feel they are gods because they made the A.I. that can give commands every 1 1 millionth of a second ./......... pleeeeeeease killllllllll that pause button because that kills the intensity and introduce battles where 1 decision could be the outcome wethir in your favour or not

Of course I will but RTW but when a game can sport 2-5000 men per unit and not make the whole game a battle of special units that are flanking each other., I will can the total war series because I'm too old to be playing arcade style ........ of course I got a good laugth at how I would beat my mom on nintendo because I had good eyehand coordination but I am past that now

Starcraft:TW
Warcraft:TotalWar
Lord of the Rings :TotalWar
DiabloII:TotalWar
SIMS:TotalWar... now there is a huge fanbase ready to buy anything!

George Bush - Total War

You get ten thousand diplomats on a battlefield all accusing each other of having weapons of mass destruction.

Ancient total war: the romans were well documented but going to far back will result in too much guesswork for units and the like,
that said Neolithic:Total War has a ring to it!!

MTW 2:if the map was expanded to cover more of the world this could give the game a massive scope

Asian:TW: good idea, not just china, would be nice to cover more.

Mongol:TW: decent scope, good unit variety, MASSIVE units.

Napoleonic:TW: Firearms limit the game too much and if the battles are done well the game will be too boring for the casual gamer, time frame is short, unit variety not as large as any of above.

American:TW: As with Napolean but the time frame could be far longer, could start with the white invasion and onto the civil war, but the different wars would lack historical continuity if the gamer was given too much opportunity to change history, the civil war might not happen!
Has the advantage of appealing to the American market (which is all most publishers really care about) and it can be more authentic as theres no need to rape someone elses history and rewrite it for the benefit of the masses!!

WW2 and Modern:TW: get real, anyone pushing for this has zero understanding of the scales, formations and complexities of modern combined arms tactics, the unit TOEs themselves would make the game too complicated to make. Buy tacops or combat mission instead.

Sigh, all this war.... why don't we make a game called Total Peace? Yes! Like Hippie: Total Peace, or: Gandhi: Total Peace. You get to wage no war whatsoever, you don't invade someones provinces, you don't build military units. Instead, you love, as much as you can. You love the other factions. With love, you conquer the strategy map until it's a nice, pink colour. 'Battle' mode will consist of units hugging each other.

.....

What did I smoke today? ~:dizzy:

Napoleonic total war has been done as a mod for MTW (and RTW as soon as it's out). And anyone who says that musketry wouldn'd work in the total war style is just plain wrong. I have the mod and it's great, it's on version 3 with version 4 coming soon. Personally I like musketry better than swords and bows, when i heard that rome was the next total war game i was pissed. Really pissed i wanted them to keep going into the 16th century. After about a month and loads of game info later I calmed down. Now I'm phsyched for RTW, pre-ordered it and eveything.
Personally after rome I want them to do asian total war. That is a total war game who's map goes from where it ended in MTW to the pacific ocean. With persian, indian, chinese, mongol, korean, thai, khemer, viet, turkic, and japanese factions.

Well, I'd like anything with Dutch in it...:p.

LOTR;TW is already in the making, well.. sorta. It's LOTR;Battle for Middle Earth. It won't feature the diplomacy part I think.. can't see some guy from Rohan go to Isengard "Please stop making Uruk-Hai, you can marry Eowyn if you want!" hehe. But the battles might be the same.

Napoleon, China and America; TW all sound nice and might be ok.

I would really love a fantasy based TW. This also gives new challenges and 'wow' factor stuff, like the addition of flying units! Dragons and griffins... hmmm goodness.

But don't expect a new game in the series for a long time (save an expansion for RTW that is), I read in a press anouncement or something they are going for console games in the not so distant future...

To be honest, i would just like my copy of RTW, i dont care what comes after ~D

^I hear you just another month ~:cheers:

LotR total war is in the works, but it'll suck. From what I've seen so far it looks like every other point and click game.

It isn't fit for TW anyway. As cool as the battles would be there were few factions, and few realms to choose. Every nation was in decline, their borders were shrinking not expanding, and the wars were relatively short.

Silmarillion..........

Massive scale, and a variety of units. Battles on a legendary scale and a war of scale and scope befitting the TW engine.

Think how much fun modders would have with flying units, and Balrogs (dread the "can balrogs fly debate")

Make for great visuals. The units, and landscapes would be an awesome sight.

Fall of Rome.

Somebody is doing a mod for MTW called "Fall of Rome TW," I know, but it would also make a great sequel to RTW. RTW covers the birth of the empire. Fall of Rome would include Vandals, Visigoths, Huns, Franks, Eastern and Western Empires, etc. It would rock most righteously. Who wants Maximus on the Rhine? Well, I do, for one!

You could decide the religion of the empire (like in Shogun TW)-- whether to "go christian" like Constantine or tough it out and stay pagan. You could replay the epic journey of the Visigoths as they marched from Germany to North Africa. Fight as Romanized Britons under Arthur, etc, etc. Ambush the legions in the German forests and grab yourself a handful of Eagles...

Oh my, I'm gettin' all excited.

:hide:

Be excellent to each other.

How about World: Total war? Could start in 300BC, and ending date circa 1600AD. The entire world would be the map, and it would start with all the factions that were in the world at that time. Of course lots of speculation in some areas would be needed, but I think a total war that covers the entire globe is needed. ;)

romanised britons under arthur....... i think perhaps the total war series should go in a historical direction as opposed to a hollywood direction.

Gunpowder warfare is too boring for most players, it wont be made, personally i would love to see a total war game spanning from early matchlock hand gonnes to needle guns and chassepots in the early 1800s, and possibly up to the russian-japonese conflict, ww1 couldnt be covered though, and the maps would need to be much larger (but by the next game they probably will be ~:) .
the problem is to make it all go together seamlessly, im not sure it can be done, too much hopping between conflicts.

as a final note, id prefer to see any total war sequel based on valid history and not anything involving russel crowe, sean bean or brad pitt!

Eurasia: Total War

spanning 100BC to 1400AD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka

I would really like to see a Fantasy Total War, too. But the slippery part is that it should be both realistic enough to carry the "Total War" feeling, and at the same time allows for fantastic units and powers. I'm VERY afraid that a FTW would simply becomes arcade, particularly when the trend start to show its ugly head so much in RTW...

---

Robert Jordans Wheel of Time series.
~:cool:

A total war game based on Irish,welsh,english,scottish,norse etc. etc. legends would be supremely interesting,
It would be fantasy but with real myth to add depth.

Only problem is it would take 20 years of study to fit all the myths together properly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kchickenlord

romanised britons under arthur....... i think perhaps the total war series should go in a historical direction as opposed to a hollywood direction ........as a final note, id prefer to see any total war sequel based on valid history and not anything involving russel crowe, sean bean or brad pitt!

---

It's too late!
~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kchickenlord

A total war game based on Irish,welsh,english,scottish,norse etc. etc. legends would be supremely interesting,
It would be fantasy but with real myth to add depth.

Only problem is it would take 20 years of study to fit all the myths together properly!

---

I don't think that would be the only problem. ~:) I think heroes like Cu Chulainn wading through enemy units and slaughtering them single handedly would rather unbalance the standard total war system. Mythology centers on warrior heroes who were the match of an entire regiment (or sometimes, army) of foes. I like the way that Total War focuses on the units, not the heroes.

I agree, but my point is that it would be a better alternative to a fantasy total war, there would be something educational in it, im sure the engine is capable enoguh, and jedi generals wouldnt seem out of place!

Maybe we could just change to elephant model to cu chulainn ~D

King Azzole:

Quote:

---

How about World: Total war? Could start in 300BC, and ending date circa 1600AD.

---

Peregrine_Tergiversate:

Quote:

---

Eurasia: Total War

spanning 100BC to 1400AD

---

*cough*Civilization*cough*

Regarding Fantasy: Total War. Yeah it would be quite good, but I'm almost certain everyone who buys it is going to be dissappointed because we all have our idea of "cool" fantasy battles.
People will moan "Where's the orks?" and "These dragons don't breathe fire!", "how come some wizard is more powerful than my whole army?", "My ogre army doesn't look right!"..... ad nauseum.
This is because fantasy is just that, fantasy, and everyone will want the game to be how they percieve a fantasy world to be.

If they based it on some pre-made fantasy, ie LOTR, then it would work better. But, from what I've seen of LOTR there isn't that much variety of units, factions etc. Its all Orks with pikes and crappy swords, or riding wierd dog things. And on the human side it's 1 type of cavalry, crap archers and an assortment of militia types. And don't get me started on those tree people.
On the faction front it's either Gondor, Rohan or Mordor. I suppose you could play the game as hobbits, if you really wanted. But its a step backwards from Medieval, if anything.

I don't know many fantasy literature/movies. Does anyone know any other possible "worlds" to base Fantasy: TW on?

Yeah the wamhammer world( the tabletopgame) would be perfect for a total war game. It has it all. A large varity od races of creatures, and every race has its own fighting style. Large towns and huge, exciting map.

It would be PERFECT!!!!!