When the options are over...for CA

**SpencerH** · 09-19-2007, 22:59

I think the TW engine could be used to make a small unit (company or maybe bn) modern (ie WWII - now) combat game. With each tactical map unit being a tank or a MG or a squad for example. Most modern small unit combat is fought on virtually the same scale as M2TW.

**Gaius Terentius Varro** · 09-19-2007, 23:17

Problem is that CA would find a lot of competiton in that period (ww2)something they are not used to.

**SpencerH** · 09-20-2007, 11:51

There are strategic WWII games like HOI but AFAIK no tactical level 3D strategy game.

**Zenicetus** · 09-20-2007, 19:31

I don't think WWII works, for several reasons. There are problems with the scale of the 3D tactical battle map when you start adding long-range artillery, mechanized units like tanks, and aircraft. The battle areas would have to be huge, unless that stuff is just abstracted or miniaturized, like the way it's done in Company of Heroes. It wouldn't make sense to have a nice 3D naval combat engine like the one they're adding to Empire:TW without something similar for major air battles like the Battle of Britain, Midway, or the strategic bombing campaigns later in the war. It would be tough to extend CA's basic design of strategic map + small tactical battle map area to those scenarios involving air combat.

Another problem with WWII is that it doesn't fit the "lots of factions, and every faction out for itself" model that the previous TW games have been built on. If it followed history at all, you'd have essentially just two factions competing with each other -- the Allies and the Axis. It wouldn't have the feel of a classic, open-ended TW title, unless they have a scenario where every country is fighting every other one for conquest (basically, the same objection I'd have to an American Civil War TW game). If they did do that, then playing as America your first obvious goal would be to invade and conquer Canada, because it's close, resource-rich, and relatively undefended.

Then you'd attack Mexico for the oil fields. It might be a fun sandbox game, but you couldn't call it a "WWII" game.

It might also be a little tricky to have important but distasteful (in modern times) options at the end of the tech tree, like fire-bombing of civilian cities and the atomic bomb. Maybe this is why most WWII strategy games focus on more restricted campaigns, like the Battle of the Bulge or D-Day.

So, just my opinion, but I think WWII is a non-starter as a TW title. CA should stick to earlier periods of conflict before big, worldwide strategic alliances developed. And preferably more melee and primitive missle combat instead of gun-based armies, but thats' just my personal bias.

**SpencerH** · 09-22-2007, 23:55

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

I don't think WWII works, for several reasons. .......................

You've got the scale wrong. I'm not talking about global scale WWII - Modern Total War. I'm talking about a game played at the company/platoon level on the tactical map and BN/REGT on the "strategic map" ie Band of Brothers TW.

A 2X2 km scale, as is already in use, would be fine.

**Zenicetus** · 09-23-2007, 01:51

Originally Posted by SpencerH

You've got the scale wrong. I'm not talking about global scale WWII - Modern Total War. I'm talking about a game played at the company/platoon level on the tactical map and BN/REGT on the "strategic map" ie Band of Brothers TW.

A 2X2 km scale, as is already in use, would be fine.

Well, sure, the tactical 3D engine could be adapted for a small unit game like Company of Heroes, but that would require either 1) scaling the strategy map down to just a narrow campaign, like the Normandy invasion (which isn't what the TW series has done in the past), or 2) having a traditional huge TW strategy map where we spend all out rime fighting small "representative" battles to determine a larger outcome on the world stage.

Neither one makes sense to me as a TW title, but that's just personal opinion. There are all sorts of games one could imagine by starting with the 3D tactical battle map, since (arguably) that's the stronger side of the TW games, even with everyone's complaints about the tactical AI. But I like the large-scale strategy side of the game too, with many different factions competing with each other. That just wouldn't happen in a WWII game, unless it breaks the historical timeline and ignores the 2-sided nature of the conflict.

**Daveybaby** · 09-23-2007, 10:31

Originally Posted by SpencerH

You've got the scale wrong. I'm not talking about global scale WWII - Modern Total War. I'm talking about a game played at the company/platoon level on the tactical map and BN/REGT on the "strategic map" ie Band of Brothers TW.

That sounds great - but it's not a total war game, just half of one. The problem with WWI and WWII isnt necessarily the tactical combat, it's with the campaign, both its limitations in terms of scale and number of 'factions', and in how it would integrate with the tactical engine.

e.g. If the fighting is at the company/platoon level, do you realise how many battles youre going to have to fight in a campaign. Probably a few hundred per turn.

btw, if you havent already, check out the close combat series of games. I think theyre pretty much exactly what youre talking about w.r.t. tactical combat (albeit not in sexy 3d). Well worth a look even now.