A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHawk

people don't seem to realize that trench warfare wasn't all of ww1...it was a tactic, they didn't have to use, and prolonged the war. Use different tactics.

naval battles, and all the different theater's of war would interest me the most about a ww1 total war.

they could do it say... 1860 -1920, start off with american civil war, franco-prussian war, unification of germany, spanish-american war, then endgame with ww1.

possibility of going ahistoric with say, the CSA in WW1.

then ww2 expansion.

---

We realise it wasn't the entire war, but it was most of it. If one side uses trench warfare the other side doesn't really have a choice in the matter, they are forced into using it as the best way of defending ground.

If we have a WW1 game where trench warfare wasn't a big part of it, it isn't really a WW1 game..

Also if the endgame was WW1 CA would have to script things so it always happens, otherwise it probably would never happen at all. And we know that CA dislike scripted events.

Quote:

---

people don't seem to realize that trench warfare wasn't all of ww1...it was a tactic, they didn't have to use, and prolonged the war. Use different tactics.

---

I see what you are saying, but my impression is trench warfare was a tactic that grew widespread during WWI because of the technology available in 1914--eg, accurate infantry rifles, and especially the general use of machineguns...these made more open warfare much too deadly (it took both sides a while to learn this lesson, even after the trenches made their appearance). When tanks and airplanes took the fore the tactic fell away (but not completely...infantry still had the desire to dig in when defending, just not to the same scale).

You are right, in a WWI sim you could use different tactics, but if the technology was the same you should lose.

Quote:

---

naval battles, and all the different theater's of war would interest me the most about a ww1 total war.

---

I don't see WWI as being a viable period for a Total War game but I sure would love to try emulating Goodenough & his actions with the 1st (later 2nd) Light Cruiser Squadron of the Grand Fleet :2thumbsup:

Yes, definitely. (For some reason, I am unable to vote on this poll)

There are a lot of decent WWI/WWII era games out there, but none on the scale of the Total War games with a true large scale campaign mode. If CA doesn't do a modern version of Total War, I am sure someone else will do one. All that's missing is the campaign.

There's a reason that military students at West Point and other schools are still taught fundamental historical battles and tactics from the time periods of the current Total War games - it's because those old methods actually translate very well to modern warfare. Tactics like flanking are still used. A tank division was used to smash enemy lines in WWII that same way we use heavy cavalry in the TotalWar games.

Modern infantry w/rifles = archers
Artillery = culverin and other gunpowder weapons
Air force = horse archers
tanks = elephants
armored personnel carriers = praetorians
etc.

It would definitely be possible for CA to upgrade the game to the modern era, although obviously, there would have to be changes in the scale of battles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBI

Suffice it to say I agree with just about everything Kiron Drayga has said in this thread. I'm glad someone else appreciates that WWI and WWII are not the same thing; it's getting a little tiresome that every time I mention that I'd like to see a WWI strategy game I am told "but there are loads of WWII games already"; they are totally different conflicts. Does the prevalence of games set in the Ancient period negate the need for games set in the Medieval period?

I also largely agree with the assertion that although WWII is outside the bounds of what Total War could forseeably do, WWI is not. It would take a major reimagining of the tactical aspect of the game, not to mention a significant advance on the current technical capabilities of the batle engine, but I suspect it could be done. We need to distinguish between what the Total War series has been about so far, and what it fundamentally must be about.

So far, the tactical combat has been primarily about melee, with ranged units playing an important but ultimately secondary role (although I would argue that the tactical game would be very boring if it were just melee, with no skirmishing at all to limit the dominance of heavy troops). In Empire this is likely to change, with ranged fire being the main means by which two armies will engage in combat and with the ability to charge to melee playing an important, but ultimately supporting, role. It's a different interpretation from what Total War combat has been about so far, but I would argue it would be take an extremely narrow and needlessly restrictive definition of the tactical game to argue it is not still recognisably Total War.

Similarly, tactical combat has so far been about close-packed, ordered formations of men who by and large fight as a unit and have relatively little individual autonomy. However, I see no fundamental reason why a Total War game could not take a different interpretation of how units should behave without ceasing to be a Total War game.

As I have previously stated, the main obstacle to a WWI-era Total War, besides the fact that apparently no one realises it is not the same thing as WWII, is the sheer question of scale. Armies became so large and fronts became so long that the idea of flanking in the sense it currently exists in in Total War became impractical. Although this would certainly require an interesting departure from traditional Total War tactics (I for one would relish the challenge of trying to turn the first day of the Somme into a British victory, for example), at present the battle engine is simply not equipped to deal with the idea of scale being an important factor; in all but the largest battles, the amount of time it takes for a unit to march the length of the battle line is unlikely to be large enough to affect the outcome of the battle. Basically, we would need to see an increase in both the size of the battlefield and the number of soldiers by an order of magnitude or two; armies numbering in the tens of thousands and a battle front of ten kilometers or so would I suspect be enough to do the typical WWI battle justice.

Again this would be a significant reimagining of what Total War combat has traditionally been about, but I don't see why it's something the Total War model couldn't be adapted to, other than the fact that at present the technology isn't up to modelling such huge battles. Certainly it couldn't and shouldn't be done in the next installment; but maybe a few installments down the line, when technology has advanced, it could be done.

On a different note, I'd also like to point out that I too have no desire whatsoever to see concentration camps in a Total War game, nor do I think it could tastefully be done, not in abstracted, conspicuous-by-its-absence form and certainly not in all its horrific detail. I simply don't believe we are yet in a era where it would be appropriate to present an atrocity so keenly felt in the modern conciousness as the Holocaust in the context of an entertaining game. Similarly, I have no desire whatsoever to play Rwandan Genocide: Total War, Darfur: Total War, or Khmer Rouge: Total War.

PS It's good to see so many high-quality contributions from new members at the moment. :bow:

---

Great post.

Modern battle tactics are just melee on a large scale - a Total War WWI/WWII game could simply be built around a larger scale battle map for the battles.

And as for trench warfare, how is that any different from fighting the enemy on walls? Moving troops in and out of trenches could be managed the same way troops are manoevered onto walss in the current TW games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeenPlayingSinceRTW

And as for trench warfare, how is that any different from fighting the enemy on walls? Moving troops in and out of trenches could be managed the same way troops are manoevered onto walss in the current TW games.

---

Well, you have clearly no idea whats so ever. This is front line warfare we are talking about not some hordes roaming.

Trench warfare was where they fought with 200k of infantry overall against, to gain ONE kilometer of advance. Who on earth would like to play game like that?

When it comes to WWI and WWII. The grand campaign and real time battle can be done only separately. PERIOD. Campaign for example Hearts of Iron way, real time strategy for example the Theatre of War way. Them coming together in one package the way the Total War plays, this is simply not possible. PERIOD. I will not buy the idea where in Total War - WWII Germany does blitzkrieg in Poland with 6k large stack. How you will implement battles taking weeks, not just evening or morning? And more importantly who will play that? Man, I deeply think that there should be far less battles in Total War games, but when they occur they should be important and last longer that 30 minutes. Saying that I got my ass beat up, because they didn't wanted "realism". If you don't want realism don't do WWII game, please just leave it be.

The Total War game with WWII theme has no value whatsoever. However Total War with only WWII naval warfare in it with huge realistic enough distances (battle map) and realistic battle. I'm listening, yeah let me see that project.


I would love finally hear those ideas of how this WWI or WWII gameplay will be implemented? How did any of you imagined it when you voted yes? Please, since you all already voted yes, might as well go ahead and eagerly tell me what kind of a game I will be playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praxil

Well, you have clearly no idea whats so ever. This is front line warfare we are talking about not some hordes roaming.

Trench warfare was where they fought with 200k of infantry overall against, to gain ONE kilometer of advance. Who on earth would like to play game like that?

When it comes to WWI and WWII. The grand campaign and real time battle can be done only separately. PERIOD. Campaign for example Hearts of Iron way, real time strategy for example the Theatre of War way. Them coming together in one package the way the Total War plays, this is simply not possible. PERIOD. I will not buy the idea where in Total War - WWII Germany does blitzkrieg in Poland with 6k large stack. How you will implement battles taking weeks, not just evening or morning? And more importantly who will play that? Man, I deeply think that there should be far less battles in Total War games, but when they occur they should be important and last longer that 30 minutes. Saying that I got my ass beat up, because they didn't wanted "realism". If you don't want realism don't do WWII game, please just leave it be.

The Total War game with WWII theme has no value whatsoever. However Total War with only WWII naval warfare in it with huge realistic enough distances (battle map) and realistic battle. I'm listening, yeah let me see that project.


I would love finally hear those ideas of how this WWI or WWII gameplay will be implemented? How did any of you imagined it when you voted yes? Please, since you all already voted yes, might as well go ahead and eagerly tell me what kind of a game I will be playing.

---

You need to broaden your mind.

Battles could be fought in a manner like, say, the World in Conflict game, where you can take control of infantry, armor, artillery, and air, call in air strikes, etc. Attach a large scale campaign to that and you have WWII: Total War.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but during the time periods covered by the Total War games, it was common for sieges and battles to take weeks, months, and even years, so I don't see why that would be an impediment to having WWI/WWII: Total War. If you doubt what I'm saying, just do some reading about the Crusades, or check out Caesar's Commentaries for the full details.

And trench warfare IS analagous to sieges - moving a lot of troops around to capture a small area. They didn't dig trenches all over the place for no reason in WWI. Trenches were a form of fortification, erected to defend strategic areas, just like forts and sharpened stakes in the Total War games.

Also... relax a little. These are only games after all. :beam:

Not only the TW engine couldn't represent the 20th century battles properly, but CA would face a major public relation problem.

Enslaving, murdering, deporting innocent people is a part of TW, at least since MTW (can't remember if we could do that in STW). While it's okay to enslave inhabitant of a captured settlement in MTW or to exterminate them in RTW, can you imagine the outrage it would cause if the game was set in the 20th century ?

CA would either have to make sure to not hurt nationalistic and personal sensibilities, thus dumbing down the content (no genocides, no somewhat iffy traits), thus not correctly representing the era, or to cause real outrage in some countries.

I mean, I would be like pretty shocked if I were playing let's say Germany, and was asked if I wanted to exterminate a given part of the population after I conquer a settlement. And I'm not even talking about some countries like Japan, who still somehow think they're a victim of WW2 and can't admit they've done anything wrong during WW2. Any mention of Nankin and the game would probably be boycotted in Japan. A Tibet province independent from China ? Game forbidden in China. A mention of soviet war crimes? Game boycotted in Russia. And the list goes on.

This wasn't such a problem in game like Heart of Iron, because it's mostly centered around diplomacy, empire-building and large scale strategy. But TW, with its character development system, and its previous "what shall we do with this conquered settlement" choice? I can see bad things happening there.

I am not really for or against a WWI game. But something to be considered is the reason there are so few WWI games is because they don’t generate much interest in the public.

Everyone thinks trench warfare and hundreds of thousands of dead, sometimes in a single day and people kind of loose interest right there.
Also chemical warfare is something of a turn off for a lot of people…the early equivalent of nuclear I guess. But not something just to leave out either! They made masks for the dogs and horses, for the love of Mike!

With that said, there are a lot of interesting aspects to a global conflict in that era. Steel Ships, submarines, Zeppelins, airplanes, machineguns, & tanks all hold an allure.


However, a scripted set of players on each side would not be a big sell for me. I can’t even imagine how the Central Powers had a chance to win outside Europe, or even in it for that matter.

It might make for a fascinating multi player diplomatic game. But by the same token it would not be a great draw for the single player without all of the diplomatic intrigues. Something we have yet to see a game get right!

How do you bribe Italy to change sides? How do you get countries that have so little self interest to get involved in a global conflict?

I am sure the units and battlefield engineering could be worked out but that is only a minor part of the whole picture of what was termed the war to end all wars.

Strategic submarine warfare and strategic bombing played a part. Cutting off of recourses at sea. These are not ship to ship or plane to place battles with clear winners and looser. A submarine that escapes an escort will still hunt merchant ships. Every ship at sea is a target and every bomb that strikes a city has an impact on building and infrastructure, not to mention the actual damage to war materials. Mine fields were established at sea as well as on land and those at sea sometimes were cast loose just to drift until the found some target. It is not just the battle map where people die!

Supply and logistics also played a huge part. Moving whole armies by rail and ship. Supply of scarce resources in far flung locations. When artillery barrages last for days ammunition resupply is a big issue.

A game of the first world war would be an onion of ever more layers.

It would be a hard game to get right and it would also have an uncertain market. It makes it a tough sell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Everyone thinks trench warfare and hundreds of thousands of dead, sometimes in a single day and people kind of loose interest right there.
Also chemical warfare is something of a turn off for a lot of people…the early equivalent of nuclear I guess. But not something just to leave out either! They made masks for the dogs and horses, for the love of Mike!

With that said, there are a lot of interesting aspects to a global conflict in that era. Steel Ships, submarines, Zeppelins, airplanes, machineguns, & tanks all hold an allure.


However, a scripted set of players on each side would not be a big sell for me. I can’t even imagine how the Central Powers had a chance to win outside Europe, or even in it for that matter.

It might make for a fascinating multi player diplomatic game. But by the same token it would not be a great draw for the single player without all of the diplomatic intrigues. Something we have yet to see a game get right!

How do you bribe Italy to change sides? How do you get countries that have so little self interest to get involved in a global conflict?

I am sure the units and battlefield engineering could be worked out but that is only a minor part of the whole picture of what was termed the war to end all wars.

Strategic submarine warfare and strategic bombing played a part. Cutting off of recourses at sea. These are not ship to ship or plane to place battles with clear winners and looser. A submarine that escapes an escort will still hunt merchant ships. Every ship at sea is a target and every bomb that strikes a city has an impact on building and infrastructure, not to mention the actual damage to war materials. Mine fields were established at sea as well as on land and those at sea sometimes were cast loose just to drift until the found some target. It is not just the battle map where people die!

Supply and logistics also played a huge part. Moving whole armies by rail and ship. Supply of scarce resources in far flung locations. When artillery barrages last for days ammunition resupply is a big issue.

A game of the first world war would be an onion of ever more layers.

It would be a hard game to get right and it would also have an uncertain market. It makes it a tough sell.

---

All of the complexities you list are what would make it an interesting game, in my opinion.

I agree that a scripted outcome would detract from the gameplay, I think it would be better if the outcome were affected by your actions in the game, the same way it is in the existing Total War games. In a WWI/WWII: Total War you shouldn't be restricted to playing along with history, you should be able to form alliances and make decisions that differ from what actually happened. (For example, if you're playing as Japan, you could decide not to attack Pearl Harbor; if you're playing as USA you could decide to attack Germany early in the game without waiting for Europe to be overrun)

I think the Total War franchise will slowly wither and die if they simply go back and redo an era that they've already done. What separates the Total War games from other games out there is the campaign rather than the battle engine (although the battle engine is quite good). Without the drama and novelty of the campaign circumstances, the battles would get old quickly, which is why I believe the TW:multiplayer so far has been kind of lame.

So far, with every release, they've added different historical elements to the campaign (hordes, religion, gunpowder, discovery of the Americas, American Revolution) that added to the complexity and made the game more interesting as a result. Bringing the game into the present day is the natural next step.

Personally, I think that even if the Total War franchise decides against it, someone will do a WWII/WWI game with full campaign and realtime battles anyway. The market for such a game would be huge - there are already more WWII strategy games than any other time period if I'm not mistaken. There might be some controversy, but controversy sells - I bet every single person on this board would go out and buy a WWII game if it had a campaign like Total War along with realtime battles (assuming it was decent). I know I would. And I will. :yes:

While I choose 'Wouldn't Mind', I have to say it wouldn't be high on my list. As much as I enjoy the modern area of warfare, I think Total War has done a fantastic job with those 'older' eras. After the evolution release (which I think should cover the next approx 100 years after Empire) I would prefer to see them go back to Three Kingdoms or Mongol, some asian centered total war.

well, I honestly don't like all-ranged warfare(or mostly-ranged). ETW was already kind of a stretch. But anyway, how are we going to incorporate airstrikes and tanks and all this other stuff. Both sides have made strong arguments, but let me ask you this: How is CA going to make a game that will a)offend many with extermination, etc. as listed earlier, b)give massive-scale battles, c)keep it all going smoothly on a computer, and d)incorporate airstrikes, tanks, small islands, brutal warfare, POW camps, and the like? It's a very tricky thing to do and if CA can pull it off, I will buy that game out of respect for making it work, even If I don't like it that much. I think TW should go back to an asian style total war, or maybe even babylonian or fantasy TW. TW so far has been mostly infantry and tactics, I think incorporating all the technology and guns and stuff from WWI will stop making it as much of a TW as we know it and more of some other game.

Quote:

---

I think the Total War franchise will slowly wither and die if they simply go back and redo an era that they've already done.

---

Really? Because you know they seemed to do just fine after they released MTW2 and I'm willing to bet that same group would go out and Buy Shogun Total war 2 or Rome total War 2 just as likely as they would a WW 1/2 game.

That's the whole point though, it's already out there. It's been done. If your argument is it's a redux, then it's a mute point because WW 2 has been redone more then any era period. It does sell to the RTS crowd. The crowd that want's buildings, instant gameplay and little patience.

This is the same crowd and reason that CA has repeatedly made Total war games have less management and more main streamed.

In all likely hood they may have to make it eventually if only as a cash cow. I can accept that.

I just don't have to like it.

as the demo will show (oh you all saw that coming) there are other fun periods beyond ww2 struggles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

Really? Because you know they seemed to do just fine after they released MTW2 and I'm willing to bet that same group would go out and Buy Shogun Total war 2 or Rome total War 2 just as likely as they would a WW 1/2 game.

That's the whole point though, it's already out there. It's been done. If your argument is it's a redux, then it's a mute point because WW 2 has been redone more then any era period. It does sell to the RTS crowd. The crowd that want's buildings, instant gameplay and little patience.

This is the same crowd and reason that CA has repeatedly made Total war games have less management and more main streamed.

In all likely hood they may have to make it eventually if only as a cash cow. I can accept that.

I just don't have to like it.

as the demo will show (oh you all saw that coming) there are other fun periods beyond ww2 struggles.

---

I agree with basically everything in this post. I still don't get why people claim they want CA to do something different and then ask for a World War game however.

Whilst WW1 has not been done too frequently WW2 certainly has. So why make yet another WW2 game? CA cover time periods that very few other games cover, and they do them better than any other game company. Ther eare a whole lot of other time periods CA can cover before they need to go do a World War game.

Those who are saying they might get stuck in a rut have a point, but that will only be if CA let themselves. History is pretty big, there's a lot of it. We have enough countries and time periods to make a hundred games before running out of ideas.

I like my warfare to be up close and personal with big sticks, or at least from a reasonable distance with sticks that go BANG and produce lots of smoke.

Warfare where you can be killed by a man who is sitting in a building several miles a way, or in the cockpit of a plane a mile above you, just doesn't seem like it would make a very fun TW game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

Really? Because you know they seemed to do just fine after they released MTW2 and I'm willing to bet that same group would go out and Buy Shogun Total war 2 or Rome total War 2 just as likely as they would a WW 1/2 game.

That's the whole point though, it's already out there. It's been done. If your argument is it's a redux, then it's a mute point because WW 2 has been redone more then any era period. It does sell to the RTS crowd. The crowd that want's buildings, instant gameplay and little patience.

This is the same crowd and reason that CA has repeatedly made Total war games have less management and more main streamed.

In all likely hood they may have to make it eventually if only as a cash cow. I can accept that.

I just don't have to like it.

as the demo will show (oh you all saw that coming) there are other fun periods beyond ww2 struggles.

---

You could be right.

But for me personally, M2TW was the weakest of the three. I played it much less than the other two (RTW and RTW:BI), and have not played it at all since a few months after getting it, although I have gone back and played the other two many times. I think probably part of that has to do with the fact that there wasn't really that much difference between the battle tactics and campaign characteristics between RTW:BI and M2TW. Yeah, there was gunpowder in the late stages of the game, but a lot of the city building was kind of redundant (rebuilding the same things as in the earlier two games - roads, blacksmiths, etc.).

There were major differences in the RTW and RTW:BI campaigns - in RTW, you had to start from nothing to build an empire, while in RTW:BI you started with a full empire and the challenge was to prevent it from collapsing. The lack of a major change in scenery in M2TW made the game less interesting, in my opinion. Would I really be excited by the prospect of rebuilding the same type of civilization that I already built in RTW again for RTW2? I don't think so. Given a choice between a rehash of RTW and a game set in a completely different time period I would choose the new game rather than the retread.

For me, these games are just entertainment. I play other games now, and I'll play others in the future. Some of the other war games I play are set in modern times, and I would love to play a TW-style campaign along with the modern-day battles. I don't think I'm the only person who feels this way, which is why I'm sure someone will build such a game. As game franchises go, TW has already lasted longer than most games...

They may build one, Tw has lasted longer then some not as long as others.

They would get more of the main stream I have little doubt and that is always a fore focus of CA's mind. I will say though, that quite clearly, as this poll shows. The die hard fans are overwhelmingly against it. Not to say there isn't a small percantage that want it, but the percantage that definetly do not want it is far larger, almost double.

It's merely how you view it. Yes if you view it in the spectrum of total war Rome or shogun would be a reappearance of a similiar theme previously played. That said CA has stated they would love to at some point go back to Rome and Shogun and give them the MTW2 treatment, it was in a interview shortly after MTW 2 released, so it's coming at some point.

The next game, I don't know but some point.

In the main market though WW2 games are are probably 8 to 1 over other startegy games. Even roman games which had a slight resurrgance, Europa: Rome, Pratoreans, Civcity:Rome, etc, quickly vanished. WW 2 games sell normally because they are fast paced.

Games like Company of Heroes, Commandos, and other small tactical games sold because they brought a tactical fast paced setting to a familiar time frame.

Games like Battlefield 1942, and Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor, sell because FPS's are far more popular then almost all other genres combined.

Yes, a campaign map game could be done with WW2 and it might be semi new, but I don't want Axis vs Allies again, I've done it to many times, in to many games. Even Rome vs Carthage has seen less action.

Honestly, if the buildings depress you I think you'll be disappointed in Empire. We've already seen university (academy), and farms (land clearance) being done again.

We are also seeing familiar factions again England, France, Germany.

and we are seeing a familiar region of map, (You are starting in Europe again for the most part)


Many find the true joy of TW games not the newness, Japan wasn't new when Shogun came out, it's the way they refine, detail, and enhance a game to truly make it a game that puts you in the seat of the Shadow Advisor behind the throne/faction.

They could make Shogun4 as far as I'm concerned, if it has better graphics, a more detailed campaign map, and better Ai, i'd buy it.

Of course I'd much rather have

A

Demo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

They may build one, Tw has lasted longer then some not as long as others.

They would get more of the main stream I have little doubt and that is always a fore focus of CA's mind. I will say though, that quite clearly, as this poll shows. The die hard fans are overwhelmingly against it. Not to say there isn't a small percantage that want it, but the percantage that definetly do not want it is far larger, almost double.

It's merely how you view it. Yes if you view it in the spectrum of total war Rome or shogun would be a reappearance of a similiar theme previously played. That said CA has stated they would love to at some point go back to Rome and Shogun and give them the MTW2 treatment, it was in a interview shortly after MTW 2 released, so it's coming at some point.

The next game, I don't know but some point.

In the main market though WW2 games are are probably 8 to 1 over other startegy games. Even roman games which had a slight resurrgance, Europa: Rome, Pratoreans, Civcity:Rome, etc, quickly vanished. WW 2 games sell normally because they are fast paced.

Games like Company of Heroes, Commandos, and other small tactical games sold because they brought a tactical fast paced setting to a familiar time frame.

Games like Battlefield 1942, and Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor, sell because FPS's are far more popular then almost all other genres combined.

Yes, a campaign map game could be done with WW2 and it might be semi new, but I don't want Axis vs Allies again, I've done it to many times, in to many games. Even Rome vs Carthage has seen less action.

Honestly, if the buildings depress you I think you'll be disappointed in Empire. We've already seen university (academy), and farms (land clearance) being done again.

We are also seeing familiar factions again England, France, Germany.

and we are seeing a familiar region of map, (You are starting in Europe again for the most part)


Many find the true joy of TW games not the newness, Japan wasn't new when Shogun came out, it's the way they refine, detail, and enhance a game to truly make it a game that puts you in the seat of the Shadow Advisor behind the throne/faction.

They could make Shogun4 as far as I'm concerned, if it has better graphics, a more detailed campaign map, and better Ai, i'd buy it.

Of course I'd much rather have

A

Demo

---

I hear what you're saying.

But I think that a big part of the attraction of WWI/WWII is that they are events that just about everyone in the world is very familiar with, having learned about them in school. Also, many people have parents who actually fought in those wars or were displaced by them, so many people have a personal connection.

RTW and the other Rome-era titles you mention came out just after the movie 'Gladiator' which was a worldwide smash hit that many people saw.

I happen to do some historical reading, so I have an unusual interest in the historical time periods covered by the TW series. I bet most TW customers have a similar interest, but I don't think most gamers are as interested as we are. I think the farther back in history you go, the smaller will probably be the potential audience for a TW game, for this reason.

I will admit, it's a little disappointnig to see that the faction list for ETW is basically the same as M2TW - if I end up deciding to get the game, it will be for the America piece and maybe to play as the Dutch (United Provinces?), but that may just be because I'm unfamiliar with European history (except French Revolution?) during this time period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Beane

CA cover time periods that very few other games cover

---

Like WWI, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Those who are saying they might get stuck in a rut have a point, but that will only be if CA let themselves. History is pretty big, there's a lot of it. We have enough countries and time periods to make a hundred games before running out of ideas.

---

I strongly agree. There are plenty of previously untouched historical settings for the series to cover. WWI is only one of them, and not by any stretch the best candidate for the next game in my opinion; I simply feel it should not be dismissed out of hand, nor lumped in as a concept with the saturated WW2 market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

Because you know they seemed to do just fine after they released MTW2 and I'm willing to bet that same group would go out and Buy Shogun Total war 2 or Rome total War 2 just as likely as they would a WW 1/2 game.

---

I don't know about that; I played the Civilization games since the first installment way back in the day, yet my love affair with the series ended precisely because I saw no point in shelling out another 30GBP for what is basically the same game released back in 1991, with a few extra bells and whistles but no real change in gameplay or setting. It's understandable the series went that way, a scope covering the whole of human history doesn't leave a lot of room for new settings, but the Total War series does not have that excuse.

If the Total War series goes the same way, I certainly will take my money elsewhere to more original titles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

That said, I'd assume if they did aircombat they would do it similiar to naval. IE you'd zoom into a sky scene and control individual planes that battle. Like ships pretty much.

---

You can complete air superiority all day long, but unless you affect what's happening on the ground, it is all for naught. This couldn't work. Unfortunately, I have no suggestions in this department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

A battle could start on a front 50 miles wide. Small scale skirmishes could be portrayed no doubt but how could that be extrapolated to represent a million men struggling for weeks? TW can’t do that and scale back to the map in any sensible way that I can imagine.

---

In the short term, battle lines were actually pretty static. Battles were primarily 'pushes' into the enemy line to either move it or to break through entirely. These took place on a relatively small scale in regards to both troop numbers and time. You could amass forces in an area and select a spot on the front to make a push which would bring you into the battle map just like on current TW games. Similarly, you would defend a section of the front against AI. Tactically the battles would play out much differently of course, but I see no problem with the ability to represent the current strategic map and its transition to individual battles.

Instead of regions controlled by cities, you would have an entire front represented by a flexible line alterable through battles. Cities would still exist but their importance would be diminished. A front could run through a city, resulting in an urban battle to capture it. I forsee the huge, continent-spanning fronts using a spline mechanic rather than having predefined locations, resulting in an infinite number of possible versions. This would allow (without manually programming it in) natural barriers to be used as they would be unassailable.

WWI naval battles were fought basically the same as the ones Empire will represent. WWII saw the role of the carrier becoming significant which, as I stated above, I cannot fathom being integrated.

Further, another large argument against any such attempt to integrate this period into a TW game is the miniturization of military infantry units. As a former infantryman, I can tell you that platoons (of 33ish) are put into companies, which are in turn parts of a batallion, etc. When battles take place, orders do not come down from On High (the role of the player) to individual platoons to do this or that. Rather, each batallion would have an objective (storm that part of the trench!) and each smaller unit acts as part of the whole based on training. Perhaps the solution to this isn't having rows of infantry marching in a neat formation, but having the batallion made up of more independant companies/platoons that realistically approach the objective. This would require infantry to be programmed so each member of a unit can act with more autonomy, approaching under cover if available, etc.
Basically:

• MTW 'walk forward as unit' would morph into 'walk forward as gaggle of smaller parts'
• MTW 'attack unit' would morph into 'approach using cover, with individuals rushing forward while others provide cover fire, etc., until you get into range and start blasting'
• MTW 'charge unit' would morph into 'run at a crouch until you get into range and start blasting'

In truth, that's all I see needing work as far as mechanics goes. The unit attributes and battlefield layout would take care of the rest.

Overall, I am receptive to the idea, particularly as I have a particular affection to naval battles before the carrier era (WWI dreadnoughts slugging it out), and WWI is rarely represented in any facet of entertainment.

Please, share your thoughts on my ideas. I just realized this has turned into a real wall of text.

While I would be interested in a WW1 game, I am think WW1 is perhaps too late of a period for total war to cover. The biggest problems to me is going from the normal total war standards of infantry calvery and artillery and somehow introducing tanks, airpower and possibly chemical weapons is perhaps a bit much for total war to do justice too.

Trench Warfare with both repeating weapons and machine guns slugging it out will lead to many stalemates on the battlefield. It may be nearly impossible to manuvere on the battlefield to gain an advantage. Perhaps the Spanish American War (1898) and the following Phillippine insurection would be the latest wars I would consider as potential Total War material.

Empire total war for Ca I think was the best they could do to try and appease both crowds.

The fundemental gameplay changed drastically by basically turning every unit into a ranged unit.

Meanwhile you still had the familiar buildings, past history, and factions.


For those of you making the new=ww1/2 argument. I just don't get it.

I hear, I dont' like the europe map, I want new factions, I don't want a rehash of the same buildings and techs.

Well other then techs...I think you'd be stuck. If CA did WW2 you'd get even less then you get in Empire. I mean why put in the Carribean..it has no role in WW2.

So you get Europe and you get Japan/China region of Asia. Yet this is the crowd saying they don't want Europe and Japan in another RTW or Shogun tw.

Your still going to get europe, your major factions are going to be, (for a third time) England, France, Germany, Russia, Japan. Your going to start in Europe or Japan. I mean other then China, who loses badly, I don't see any major faction in this time period that would be quote/unquote "new".

I see new units, which I think is the argument, you get planes and submarines. Yet the map, the factions, won't change.

Thus I don't see it as being that much different over Shogun 2 or Rome 2. I mean while CA will not pull a Civ 4 and do all of time, they do focused periods. Yet as they expand the globe only so much of the globe can be "new". Unless they go fantasy or sci fi or go with Australia total war lol :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

Empire total war for Ca I think was the best they could do to try and appease both crowds.

The fundemental gameplay changed drastically by basically turning every unit into a ranged unit.

Meanwhile you still had the familiar buildings, past history, and factions.


For those of you making the new=ww1/2 argument. I just don't get it.

I hear, I dont' like the europe map, I want new factions, I don't want a rehash of the same buildings and techs.

Well other then techs...I think you'd be stuck. If CA did WW2 you'd get even less then you get in Empire. I mean why put in the Carribean..it has no role in WW2.

So you get Europe and you get Japan/China region of Asia. Yet this is the crowd saying they don't want Europe and Japan in another RTW or Shogun tw.

Your still going to get europe, your major factions are going to be, (for a third time) England, France, Germany, Russia, Japan. Your going to start in Europe or Japan. I mean other then China, who loses badly, I don't see any major faction in this time period that would be quote/unquote "new".

I see new units, which I think is the argument, you get planes and submarines. Yet the map, the factions, won't change.

Thus I don't see it as being that much different over Shogun 2 or Rome 2. I mean while CA will not pull a Civ 4 and do all of time, they do focused periods. Yet as they expand the globe only so much of the globe can be "new". Unless they go fantasy or sci fi or go with Australia total war lol :yes:

---

I agree with pretty much all of this. Thats why I want a Total War game set in either China and the rest of Asia, or in Africa. Both are places no TW game has gone before.

Asia especially has a rich and colourful history, with many different factions of varying power and location. An Asian TW game could really shine, and it seems like the logical choice for the next 'Revolution' development step.

I'm not sure how well it works with this engine however. The current TW engine is based around gunpowder and naval combat. Perhaps it would be better suited to a game set in either of two periods. 1600-1700, or 1700-1850. These may be too similar to Empire however.

If TW ever do go down the fantasy route then I hope we see a game based around mythology, in the same style as Age Of Mythology. Either that or CA make a Lord of the Rings: Total War. :laugh4:

Guys, it CAN be done. But it will be vastly different from the Spartan phallanxes and massed armored feudal knights that we know. Modern warfare is more of trenches (maybe similar to a shield wall or phallanx, with rapid-fire archer support as machineguns--or ribauts?), keeping an open logistics line behind you, artillery (onagers won't be much different from howitzers), a panzergruppe to take the place of a batallion of knights... But it will take SO MUCH, MUCH work for CA to make a Modern War:TW. Or, maybe, SEGA. Are they willing to take up the challenge and create something which will be very much different looking than the usual TWs we know? Maybe yes, if they see there's money to make from it--after all, adding ships that blast at each other in E:TW was itself already a great step forward from the Romans and Seleukids that we intimately knew. And after all, let's not forget, when Shogun:TW was first made, they DID start from nearly nothing. So why not start from nearly nothing again and produce a modern TW?
A problem with aircraft, you think? Just look at airplanes as faster versions of cavalry, they get places very quickly, drop bombs as mounted archers unleash their Hell, and so forth--I see not much problem there if you have very determined game-makers. A little challenging problem with making paratroopers work, I think, but people have brains--they can solve the problem, no matter how dificult. Hawooh.

Quote:

---

E:TW was itself already a great step forward

---

Whoa, whoa, whoa, we don't even have a DEMO yet, so let's not get to reviewing a game not yet out.

I love ETW as much as next guy, but common.

It's not out, who knows how it will sell. Some the tw fan fanatics arn't buying it because it relies ot heavily on gunpowder. I can only imagine, and as this poll shows, alot of people would fret and frown at a Modern Total War REGARDLESS of how good it was.

ETW will decide it based on sales. If it sells very , very well, i assure you Sega will have someone say, "Hey, maybe something new again next time."

Now whether that new is Lord of the Rings, Startrek or World War 2 Total war, I don't know.

However, be warned, if ETW gets flaked in sales, and DOW2 crushes it, then I assure you, someone at Sega is going to go, "Hey remeber how well MTW2 sold?"

Just nature of marketing i'm afraid.

Time will tell.

As will

a

DEMO