Another Next Total War Poll

[Freedom Onanist]

Yeah, but that's a double-edged sword. Without historical accuracy to lean on as a framework for the game, Ca would have to license an existing fantasy system ("Dungeons and Dragons®:Total War"), or else invent a fantasy system from scratch. That's what Bioware is doing with Dragon Age, and it's what Stardock is doing with their Elemental: War of Magic strategy game. It's what Blizzard did with Warcraft.

It's great when it works, but it's not easy to design a coherent background universe that isn't dumb, silly, or just another Tolkien ripoff. An interesting and challenging fantasy melee/magic system takes a lot of work. How long has Dragon Age been in development now, as Bioware's attempt to ditch the D&D license? Something like eight years?

With historical warfare strategy games, all of that structure comes "free" with a little research, and the programmers can focus on coding the mechanics. Since the main complaint everyone seems to have with CA is the quality of their AI programming (or to put it differently, the ambitious scale of the game compared to what their AI can handle), I think they're better off not trying to design a fantasy world from scratch. Especially since other game companies are already in that market niche with current or upcoming projects. CA has a niche in historical wargaming that they should hang on to.

A triple-edged sword? I think the problem we have seen in all the TW games, bar Shogun (maybe?) which took most people by surpise in a setting most didn't know that well, has been the depth of the armchairs a few of the self-appointed "experts" sit in. One man's history is another's fantasy. The little dictum about history being written by the winners really does skew the one's point of view on many things hence all the "CA don't know what they are doing", "CA are anglo/euro centric", "blah, blah", ad nauseam.

If I were at CA I'd be pushing firmly for a fantasy setting, and not LOTR - just as many people with opinions. The creative effort would be well worth it to avoid all the flak about incorrect, under-powered or unfair representations.

[Fisherking]

I have seen some say that a WWII version of Total War is not possible.

I am not promoting a WWII version but I think it is entirely doable. There have already been games that had air, land, and sea in battles so why would it be imposable for CA to make one.

I don't think the current engine would do it but if they had set out to do it I don't see a problem.

But having said that, I hope they do several others before they go looking at something like that.

If I were at CA I'd be pushing firmly for a fantasy setting, and not LOTR - just as many people with opinions. The creative effort would be well worth it to avoid all the flak about incorrect, under-powered or unfair representations.

Nothing is going to stop criticism.

Some don’t like things even before they know what they are.

Some self appointed experts will say they did it wrong even if they make it up from scratch.

It doesn’t matter if they did bugs or dragons or outer space, someone will lash it and trash it.

I think CA knows that already, though...

And what is wrong with LOTR?

Except that there have been a lot, but a good one might come along someday....

[caravel]

I have seen some say that a WWII version of Total War is not possible.

I am not promoting a WWII version but I think it is entirely doable. There have already been games that had air, land, and sea in battles so why would it be imposable for CA to make one.

I don't think the current engine would do it but if they had set out to do it I don't see a problem.

I'm not an authority on history or warfare but IMHO, it's not really possible with the current incarnation of the TW engine. WWII is essentially modern warfare, i.e. squad based combat, not line infantry and cavalry charges. I don't see how the TW engine can represent house to house, street by street fighting or engagements involving armour and air power. There are a variety of sims that already do this, though most of these are very specific. At the campaign level it could perhaps be done, but when it comes to battles no. EVen then it would not be worthwhile IMHO because compaines like Paradox release those kinds of games and from what I've heard are better at it. TW's main selling point was and should always be battles, but sadly if you exclude visuals, these have degraded in quality since the first two games.

WWI is similarly unworkable due to the style of warfare of the time. From WWI onwards (well sometime before that actually) the whole idea of "units" would have to go, necessitating a complete rebuild and redesign of the engine.

[Fisherking]

Well you are right, that there is no way this engine could do it and I am not saying that it is easy but there are games out there that do it and so building one that handles the battles and the campaign is possible.

But like I said, I am not looking for it yet. There are loads of things I would rather see first.

[AussieGiant]

The Napoleonic period up to about 1820 is about as far as this type of game construct and engine can be taken.

It's the last real use of cavalry as part of the combined arms concept before it's phased out. Of course there are exceptions and cavalry was still used up until WWI but it's hard for cavalry to compete against repeating rifles and machine guns.

Unless they want to move to a command and conquer style engine they need to stay in the period before 1850.

[Braden]

The Napoleonic period up to about 1820 is about as far as this type of game construct and engine can be taken.

It's the last real use of cavalry as part of the combined arms concept before it's phased out. Of course there are exceptions and cavalry was still used up until WWI but it's hard for cavalry to compete against repeating rifles and machine guns.

Unless they want to move to a command and conquer style engine they need to stay in the period before 1850.

Totally agree. Unless we are willing to loose the TW style of play we actually like and prefer to many other games out there...CA need to limit themselves in time periods.

Or go Fantasy as already suggested. Being a huge Fantasy fan (LotR, AD&D, White Wolf, Forgotten Realms etc etc), I'm not adverse to it.

Wasn't there an attempt already at a TW "rip-off" style LotR's game?

[Freedom Onanist]

The Napoleonic period up to about 1820 is about as far as this type of game construct and engine can be taken.

It's the last real use of cavalry as part of the combined arms concept before it's phased out. Of course there are exceptions and cavalry was still used up until WWI but it's hard for cavalry to compete against repeating rifles and machine guns.

Unless they want to move to a command and conquer style engine they need to stay in the period before 1850.

Yep. Though I would push the TW a bit further to include the the ACW, even maybe the Franco-Prussian war. It would be interesting to see how the TW engine would deal with steam trains in both those conflicts.

Given the expanded geographic scope of ETW maybe we could hope for a global setting and just argue about dates? So no, Asian/European/Middle Eastern arguments, just when? when would be a good time where most major players would've had a chance to have an impact, given slightly unrealistic movement and logistics capabilities? I'd say an interesting period would be the end of the Middle Ages to up till the ETW era. Europe is fast developping new forms of warfare and the Middle and Far east haven't turned in on themselves yet.

Of course, it would a be adifficult one for CA to do. They probably don't even want to do anything of the kind given the fan base's competing pet hates and loves.

[Zenicetus]

And what is wrong with LOTR?

Now I think we're up to a four-edged sword, maybe more. We might have to move to a metaphor like a mace with a bunch of points on it. LOTR:Total War would have multiple strings attached, which could affect the quality of the game:

1) CA would be paying a licensing fee, which could cut into the funds available for programming, artwork, and testing. Unless, of course, the IP is so popular that extra sales would make up for the fee, but that's a gamble.

2) Licensing a closely-held property like LOTR, might mean restrictions from the IP owners on what CA could or couldn't show in the game (violence restrictions, etc.).

3) A popular fantasy IP like LOTR brings with it a rabid fan base, who will pick apart any deviation from canon. And the canon is much more pinned down and formalized than what we know of ancient warfare, at least. Complaints about flaming pigs aside, CA has a lot of slack for what it can show in a game about ancient Rome, Greece, China, or Japan without raising too much of a fuss. Not that many people are either experts in the time period, or care that much.

4) If you license someone else's world, characters, storyline, and melee/magic system, then you give up the potential to expand your own IP into future projects. For the best example of that, see what Blizzard was able to do with the Warcraft franchise.

I think a mix of these factors is what led Stardock and Bioware to build their own fantasy worlds from scratch for their upcoming games. Probably #1 and #4 were the main reasons, since (as mentioned up-thread) users will always find something to complain about, whatever the game concept.

[NimitsTexan]

I have seen some say that a WWII version of Total War is not possible.

I am not promoting a WWII version but I think it is entirely doable. There have already been games that had air, land, and sea in battles so why would it be imposable for CA to make one.

I don't think the current engine would do it but if they had set out to do it I don't see a problem.

But having said that, I hope they do several others before they go looking at something like that.

A WWI/WWII Total War would have to tackle several new issues, namely incorporating Air/off map indirect fire, strategic attack, presumably bigger battles, and a continuous front.

As for fantsay/Sci Fi, how about Star Trek Total War? Tie it in with the new movie release, and it already presents numerous factions to use for a campaign. The biggest problems would be handling the issue of 3D maps/combat, but given that many Star Trek/Star Wars games have used basically two dimensional campaign and combat maps, that would not seem a prohibitive problem.

[antisocialmunky]

I think you're forgetting one thing...

Third Reich Tech Research:
Philosophy Path: The Final Solution to the Jewish Question.

I don't think that CA has a big enough pair to deal with any controversial considering how Switzerland and the West African slave trade did not exist in ETW. It would have been fun to take loans from Switzerland to jump start my economy but no.... And all things considered, you can't play as the Third Reich in a strategy game - its just politically unfeasible. You're a jerk if you pretend it didn't happen and you're insesitive if you portray it.

Tactics games deal with only the military situtation while a strategy game would force you to set overarching goals.

PS. WWI has a similar problem with the Armenian Genocide but its not as sensitive of a subject in the West.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I think you're forgetting one thing...

Third Reich Tech Research:
Philosophy Path: The Final Solution to the Jewish Question.

I don't think that CA has a big enough pair to deal with any controversial considering how Switzerland and the West African slave trade did not exist in ETW. It would have been fun to take loans from Switzerland to jump start my economy but no.... And all things considered, you can't play as the Third Reich in a strategy game - its just politically unfeasible. You're a dick if you pretend it didn't happen and you're insesitive if you portray it.

Tactics games deal with only the military situtation while a strategy game would force you to set overarching goals.

PS. WWI has a similar problem with the Armenian Genocide but its not as sensitive of a subject in the West.

Hearts of Iron, anyone?

[Dead Guy]

Or Close Combat.

[Fisherking]

@ antisocialmunky

Would you like to name a mainstream title that has dealt with that in a game?

Did RTW deal with the crucifixion of any Jews?

As to WWII combat, Guys.

The battles are RTS and look at the RTS battle games out there.

It doesn’t need to be 40 simulators tacked together.

Anything of Strategic scope could be handled like the old naval battles in an auto calc with flack & fighters vs. Bombers and escorts, or escorts vs. submarines and then fix a damage result for trade or infrastructure.

Continuous lines are covered with something like interception zones.

Use your imagination, it is doable.

That is all I said.

I never hinted it was desirable.

[Freedom Onanist]

I don't think that CA has a big enough pair to deal with any controversial considering how Switzerland .....did not exist in ETW

What's controversial about Switzerland not existing? What did I miss in my history lessons? What nefarious activities were they up to in those days?

Banking? Nope.

[antisocialmunky]

What's controversial about Switzerland not existing? What did I miss in my history lessons? What nefarious activities were they up to in those days?

Banking? Nope.

They have a policy of neutrality and it seems like for that reason, the Swiss Confederation was removed form the game. We never really got an answer on the Swiss question true, but the faction's unit assets are in ETW, its just that the faction, and that part of the map doesn't exist while tons of other minor factions exist.

Would you like to name a mainstream title that has dealt with that in a game?

Did RTW deal with the crucifixion of any Jews?

1) Those games only detail the military aspect like Company of Heroes and other RTT games like Blitzkrieg. That's how they get away with doing WWII without that bit of unpleasantness. You play as the military, not the civilian government.

In contrast, TW has not been exclusively about warfare since STW with all the random 4xish stuff that was added. You play as the leader or shadow government of your country building infrastructure, charging taxes, developping trade and technology.

And that's the problem: you don't play just as a general in the faction in TW, you play as the leader of the faction. You can't ignore what's going on beyond the battles.

Not that I would care if I was playing as Mr. Hitler, but there would be a fundemental problem in ignoring the policies of the Third Reich in a game that purports to be atleast semi-historical that shows both the civillian and military side...

2) But there were zealots, enslaving, extermination, and Judea was part of the game and you could exterminate Judea :-\. You also didn't start that game 8 years into the process of collecting and slowly killing 12 million people. Similarly the inquisition was in MTW as well as the persecution of the Jews though toned down quite abit. However, again your hands weren't tied.

This is opposed to faction whose starting ideology is based on racial superiority and the extermination of subhumans and undesirables.

Then there's the issue of Japan raping and pillaging their way through Asia for about 10 years...

EDIT:

Actually, what might be interesting is a WWII TW starting in 1930 and let it go from there. America isn't a powerhouse DEMOCRACYWINZ, France isn't dead, Germany is still in a state of flux, Russia isn't crippled by purges, China isn't at its complete nadir, and Japan hasn't declared on China.

You have to do some building so the game starts off kinda slow but they you form your own alliances as factions and watch the League of Nations be sad. France, Britain, Russia, and Japan start fast while Germany, America, China need to be built up.

So you can have a Red Alert style game where Russia invades Europe and America and the Allies have to hold it off or something. :)

You could also have the Chinese Nationalists unite China, get rid of the Communists and Warlords, and invade Japan and Russia.

[AussieGiant]

So Switzerland was left out because they were neutral?

Wow. I wonder how that occurred.

The more I think about it the more I realise that CA have pretty much covered everything.

I would expect a re-do after N:TW

[Martok]

As for fantsay/Sci Fi, how about Star Trek Total War? Tie it in with the new movie release,

No.


Wait, let me rephrase that: NO!!


If they make a TW game based on that awful excuse for a "movie", blood will weep from the walls; hell-mouths will open up, devouring the Earth.

[nanoboy]

How about Bronze Age: Total War, taking place in the eastern Mediterranean region and further east to the Indus River Valley. You get a great mix of peoples, weapons, tactics, and so on. There are the Egyptians, the early Greeks, the Babylonians, the Hittites, the Canaanites, the Persians, the Jewish people (who could be treated like a horde rampaging into Canaanite territory), Abyssinia, and all sorts of other minor peoples living in the region. The existance of slingers, bowmen, early cavalry, CHARIOTS, heavy spearmen, and light swordsmen could make for some fun tactics.