WWII Total War?

**Aulus Paulinus** · 01-30-2006, 18:08

Thank you for your comment guys!

When I started this topic I seem to have overlooked a major issue - target audience. I guess I'm a strange kind of a history fan, my two favourite periods are Romans and WWII. I suppose most TW players prefer ancient and medieval period. And it may be true that current engine isn't suited for anything modern (say 20th century) but I meant that the basic principal should be used, not just making diferent skins for this one

The key word as cannon_fodder said would have to be abstraction. Every strategic game is full of it. RTW has many abstract elements. The battles are scaled down and accellerated simulations of real battles. You can have an army of say 1500-1700 people and fight an enemy army of similar size. Eventually you can have another AI controlled army of similar size (in such situations on my system the game becomes a slide show). So, altogether you can have about 5000 men maximum in one battle. Historical battles were fought with lot more than that and lasted for hours and hours. In RTW even such large battles usualy last about 10 minutes. If there's trouble on the left flank your cavalry from the right flank can arrive in a matter of seconds and solve the problem. That was impossible in reality. Not to mention the fact that any unit instantly responds to your command. Ancient commanders had no such luxury, their units had to be preissued commands on how to behave under what conditions. Alternatively they could send runners to element commanders.

Another example is strategic map movement. A unit needs one move (i.e. six months) to get from one town to another. Most turtles would get there quicker

A WWII game doesn't have to simulate the exact number of tanks, men and infantry. As far as I can tell none of them do. The Close Combat series simulated most great WWII battles with 'the tip of the spear' principle. You commanded batallion size units which happend to be where most of the action was. If the battle was not resolved, both sides could agree to ceasfire and the battle would continue another day. Something similar could be employed here. Airplanes could either be attached to army units and then called on demand (close support planes such as JU-87). Strategic and air superiority planes could be treated like navy units in RTW.

Simon Appleton said it would be hard to swallow for example Italy dominate the Med. Why's that? After all, when the game starts it doesn't have to follow the real history line at all. In my Scipii campaign there was just one Punic war. And Julius Ceasar didn't conquer the Gaul in 1st century BC, I did it in 3rd century. In my Western Roman Empire BI campaign I destroyed all the barbarian hordes and captured Consantinople. Currently I'm playing Seleucid campaign where I restored Alexander's empire (at least parts that are on the map). None of that things really happened. In WWII simulation you could have for example Germans making a deal with Soviets instead of attacking them. Together they could have defeated Western powers, who knows. The diplomatic and alliance element should also be made more complex.

Since I don't want to turn this post into a full scale novel I quit for now. Salute to everyone who joined the discussion!

Aulus Paulinus

**cannon_fodder** · 01-30-2006, 19:59

^ You just said most of what I was going to. Oh, and about target audience, I generally find modern war more interesting than ancient or medieval. I'm sure quite a few TW players feel the same.

Anyway, another point about a modern TW game is AI. Clearly, a unit such as a company does not move in unison, retaining the exact same spacing and order. The units in the TW games, due to the time period, do. It seems much greater A.I. for smaller groups of soldiers would be necessary. After all, a mass (think peasents in RTW) shooting at a mass wouldn't be very realistic. A.I. code would be much more complex, as well as being applied to smaller units, creating quite a strain on one's hardware. Note that (I'm fairly certain about this) A.I. causes more slowdown on RTW than anything else.

Which brings to mind another benefit. The TW players (including myself) who think that fights are resolved too quickly in RTW would be pleased. A fight between 2 companies firing at each other over a medium range could last quite a while. Especially given that it's likely that both would eventually fall back, and fresh meat would be brought up...

**jimmy** · 02-02-2006, 00:25

and i am in to WW2 ancient medieval history. but these games like close combat/ or sudden strike or call of duty.the thing is they are already here.in fact there is a cracking tank sim [war in the balkans i think it is called].i also like IL,2 .and in my opinion there is still loads to do regarding ancient/medieval period anyway.

**phred** · 02-02-2006, 14:37

check out this from the Arena

It looks like there's a game in the works (but not by the Creative Assembly)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=53121

If you go to the website and look at the screenshots and then scroll down to the screenshot archive, you'll see shots of the strategy map.
It hasn't been updated in a long time - Gamespot has a release date of 2007.

**Monarch** · 02-02-2006, 16:58

But would it be total war? I agree with much of what others had said, let's keep it to swords and shields, or at least early gunpowder.

**cannon_fodder** · 02-03-2006, 17:06

I don't see why there should be any limitation to the eras a TW game can take place in.

**Aulus Paulinus** · 02-07-2006, 17:43

Thanks Phred for the info, I wasn't aware of this game. From what I can see on the web page it seems that the authors were inspired by the Total War series. And it certainly shows potential. Let's just hope that they make it at least nearly as good as the RTW. One thing that worries me a bit is that last update happened about a year and a half ago. Wonder if there's any progress going on with that?

AP