When the options are over...for CA

[Ulstan]

Apologies to any Americans reading but I can't imagine an American Civil War-based TW game any time soon.

All the existing titles run for hundreds of years, with lots of factions and (supposedly) dramatic innovations in technology that give one side or another an advantage. The ACW lasted half a decade, with only two principal antagonists and limited technological improvements: I don't see how it fits the bill, at all.

Hey, no apologies needed. I'm an American and I agree wholeheartedly.

the TW franchise is not well suited to modelling the American Civil War.

I think they run into issues trying to model the subjugation of the new world, and I don't think they could get any more 'modern' than that.

I'd rather they looked farther back into history for their next title.

[Cadwallon]

I disagree - I think Total Civil War (which I'm calling it) would have a very broad based appeal. I'm Australian, and in many respects movies and documentaries about the Civil War have a broad appeal here - and I know they do overseas. It was the first truly modern war, and did witness significant technological change throughout the war. Machine guns (gatling guns), were first used, trench based warfare, modern siege techniques, the first ironclad ships, armoured trains, combined with more traditional flanking action of cavalry and bayonet charges, use of skirmishers, sharpshooters etc. Even the slightest technological edge - such as repeating carbines gave you an advantage. The confederacy also began to put african americans into the battle, too late in the way - what would happen if they had done it earlier? the Turtledove alternative history books paint a picture on how things might have gone.

It combined the best (or worst - depending on your point of view) of modern and ancient warfare. You also had a range of uniforms, unit designations and veteran units vs green 'just raised' regiments. Units would not have a 'good/excellent' morale indicator in their unit card, but would build their morale and combat bonuses more than in the current incarnation of the game.

And they still used significant 'blocks' of troops that would be useable in a Total War engine context. You also have broad brush cultural issues at play, slavery, reliance on trade (so the sea trade has a significant affect on the Confederacy's ability to continue the war against a Northern blockade - hence the invention of the Merimac), expansion into the West, involvement by foreign powers etc. I think the strategic appeal of the Total War genre might have broader appeal than traditional games which are more focused on actual tactical combat.

[diotavelli]

It was the first truly modern war, and did witness significant technological change throughout the war. Machine guns (gatling guns), were first used, trench based warfare, modern siege techniques, the first ironclad ships, armoured trains, combined with more traditional flanking action of cavalry and bayonet charges, use of skirmishers, sharpshooters etc. Even the slightest technological edge - such as repeating carbines gave you an advantage. The confederacy also began to put african americans into the battle, too late in the way - what would happen if they had done it earlier? the Turtledove alternative history books paint a picture on how things might have gone.

It combined the best (or worst - depending on your point of view) of modern and ancient warfare. You also had a range of uniforms, unit designations and veteran units vs green 'just raised' regiments. Units would not have a 'good/excellent' morale indicator in their unit card, but would build their morale and combat bonuses more than in the current incarnation of the game.

And they still used significant 'blocks' of troops that would be useable in a Total War engine context. You also have broad brush cultural issues at play, slavery, reliance on trade (so the sea trade has a significant affect on the Confederacy's ability to continue the war against a Northern blockade - hence the invention of the Merimac), expansion into the West, involvement by foreign powers etc. I think the strategic appeal of the Total War genre might have broader appeal than traditional games which are more focused on actual tactical combat.

There are still only two genuine protagonists (having any others as playable factions would be going far further from the realms of historical accuracy than CA has ever done before).

The "significant technological change" you mention is highly debatable. Sure, there was innovation, but the same could be said of the Crimean War of the previous decade or the Franco-Prussian War of the next. That too had innovation: improved weaponry, improved treatment of the wounded, improvements in siege warfare and so on but nothing comparable with the change over the centuries of RTW or M2TW.

They also had only two or three main protagonists and lasted less than a decade - so, whilst they might merit a TW campaign, they wouldn't merit a full title. Just like the ACW.

The point about full TW titles is that, whilst a significant tech advantage accompanied by a couple of big battlefield victories or city/castle captures will effectively knock out another faction as a serious opponent, there are plenty of other factions to worry about thereafter. That's the point of the grand campaign, as opposed to expansion campaigns that are supposed to be far shorter.

An ACW TW title couldn't offer that. If, as either the Confederacy or the Union, you managed to get a tech advantage and win a few battles/provinces, it would be gameover. There might still be a few native tribes to subdue but no one can seriously suggest that, by the 1860s, they might have overwhelmed and defeated either the Confederacy or the Union. Similarly, the Brits or French might pop over for a quick raid but, again, the idea that they might have tried to conquer the territory between Canada and Mexico requires stretching the truth and the imagination beyond anything in previous TW titles.

The amount of noise that is generated when CA includes ahistorical units suggests they'd be unwise to introduce ahistorical factions.

Too few factions, too similar factions, too short a time period and too little technological advance - ACW:TW wouldn't have the depth required.

An idea does occur, though: as an expansion to E:TW, how about campaigns based on the Crimean War (1850s), the ACW (1860s), the Franco-Prussian War (1870s) and the Boer War (1890s)?

[Slug For A Butt]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There are still only two genuine protagonists (having any others as playable factions would be going far further from the realms of historical accuracy than CA has ever done before).

The "significant technological change" you mention is highly debatable. Sure, there was innovation, but the same could be said of the Crimean War of the previous decade or the Franco-Prussian War of the next. That too had innovation: improved weaponry, improved treatment of the wounded, improvements in siege warfare and so on but nothing comparable with the change over the centuries of RTW or M2TW.

They also had only two or three main protagonists and lasted less than a decade - so, whilst they might merit a TW campaign, they wouldn't merit a full title. Just like the ACW.

The point about full TW titles is that, whilst a significant tech advantage accompanied by a couple of big battlefield victories or city/castle captures will effectively knock out another faction as a serious opponent, there are plenty of other factions to worry about thereafter. That's the point of the grand campaign, as opposed to expansion campaigns that are supposed to be far shorter.

An ACW TW title couldn't offer that. If, as either the Confederacy or the Union, you managed to get a tech advantage and win a few battles/provinces, it would be gameover. There might still be a few native tribes to subdue but no one can seriously suggest that, by the 1860s, they might have overwhelmed and defeated either the Confederacy or the Union. Similarly, the Brits or French might pop over for a quick raid but, again, the idea that they might have tried to conquer the territory between Canada and Mexico requires stretching the truth and the imagination beyond anything in previous TW titles.

The amount of noise that is generated when CA includes ahistorical units suggests they'd be unwise to introduce ahistorical factions.

Too few factions, too similar factions, too short a time period and too little technological advance - ACW:TW wouldn't have the depth required.

An idea does occur, though: as an expansion to E:TW, how about campaigns based on the Crimean War (1850s), the ACW (1860s), the Franco-Prussian War (1870s) and the Boer War (1890s)?

I agree wholeheartedly diotavelli.
I also agree with your earlier post that it wouldn't generate enough interest outside the US to justify it being released as a standalone title. In just the same way that the Spanish Civil War, English Civil War or War Of The Roses wouldn't generate enough interest outside their national borders, so the Americ War would also fail to interest "outsiders".

[Robespierre]

It may be true that there are tons of interesting settings for TW games. i vote for the pike and musket era myself, from the outbreak of the 30 years war up until culloden, and focusing on the ENGLISH civil war, which grew to engulf all the "British" isles and Ireland, and saw a rapid advance in military organization and tech from (un)trained bands to a standing army in just a few years. plus it kept on coming back!

but what TW really needs to make it lots more gripping is to go thoroughly unabashedly multiplayer. no more massacres of AI whip-monkey formations. who's the daddy?