Colonies and Revolution: Total War

[Divinus Arma]

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?

[The Stranger]

i hope they could get a world war total war.

[Divinus Arma]

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

[The Stranger]

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)

[Divinus Arma]

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

That is the point!

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).

how would you display germany and italy.

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

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.

[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.



...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'.

[Grifman]

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.

[Divinus Arma]

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.

[ivoignob]

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...

[The Stranger]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[Divinus Arma]

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

*Stamps feet*