A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

[Fisherking]

I am not really for or against a WWI game. But something to be considered is the reason there are so few WWI games is because they don’t generate much interest in the public.

Everyone thinks trench warfare and hundreds of thousands of dead, sometimes in a single day and people kind of loose interest right there.
Also chemical warfare is something of a turn off for a lot of people…the early equivalent of nuclear I guess. But not something just to leave out either! They made masks for the dogs and horses, for the love of Mike!

With that said, there are a lot of interesting aspects to a global conflict in that era. Steel Ships, submarines, Zeppelins, airplanes, machineguns, & tanks all hold an allure.


However, a scripted set of players on each side would not be a big sell for me. I can’t even imagine how the Central Powers had a chance to win outside Europe, or even in it for that matter.

It might make for a fascinating multi player diplomatic game. But by the same token it would not be a great draw for the single player without all of the diplomatic intrigues. Something we have yet to see a game get right!

How do you bribe Italy to change sides? How do you get countries that have so little self interest to get involved in a global conflict?

I am sure the units and battlefield engineering could be worked out but that is only a minor part of the whole picture of what was termed the war to end all wars.

Strategic submarine warfare and strategic bombing played a part. Cutting off of recourses at sea. These are not ship to ship or plane to place battles with clear winners and looser. A submarine that escapes an escort will still hunt merchant ships. Every ship at sea is a target and every bomb that strikes a city has an impact on building and infrastructure, not to mention the actual damage to war materials. Mine fields were established at sea as well as on land and those at sea sometimes were cast loose just to drift until the found some target. It is not just the battle map where people die!

Supply and logistics also played a huge part. Moving whole armies by rail and ship. Supply of scarce resources in far flung locations. When artillery barrages last for days ammunition resupply is a big issue.

A game of the first world war would be an onion of ever more layers.

It would be a hard game to get right and it would also have an uncertain market. It makes it a tough sell.

[BeenPlayingSinceRTW]

Everyone thinks trench warfare and hundreds of thousands of dead, sometimes in a single day and people kind of loose interest right there.
Also chemical warfare is something of a turn off for a lot of people…the early equivalent of nuclear I guess. But not something just to leave out either! They made masks for the dogs and horses, for the love of Mike!

With that said, there are a lot of interesting aspects to a global conflict in that era. Steel Ships, submarines, Zeppelins, airplanes, machineguns, & tanks all hold an allure.


However, a scripted set of players on each side would not be a big sell for me. I can’t even imagine how the Central Powers had a chance to win outside Europe, or even in it for that matter.

It might make for a fascinating multi player diplomatic game. But by the same token it would not be a great draw for the single player without all of the diplomatic intrigues. Something we have yet to see a game get right!

How do you bribe Italy to change sides? How do you get countries that have so little self interest to get involved in a global conflict?

I am sure the units and battlefield engineering could be worked out but that is only a minor part of the whole picture of what was termed the war to end all wars.

Strategic submarine warfare and strategic bombing played a part. Cutting off of recourses at sea. These are not ship to ship or plane to place battles with clear winners and looser. A submarine that escapes an escort will still hunt merchant ships. Every ship at sea is a target and every bomb that strikes a city has an impact on building and infrastructure, not to mention the actual damage to war materials. Mine fields were established at sea as well as on land and those at sea sometimes were cast loose just to drift until the found some target. It is not just the battle map where people die!

Supply and logistics also played a huge part. Moving whole armies by rail and ship. Supply of scarce resources in far flung locations. When artillery barrages last for days ammunition resupply is a big issue.

A game of the first world war would be an onion of ever more layers.

It would be a hard game to get right and it would also have an uncertain market. It makes it a tough sell.

All of the complexities you list are what would make it an interesting game, in my opinion.

I agree that a scripted outcome would detract from the gameplay, I think it would be better if the outcome were affected by your actions in the game, the same way it is in the existing Total War games. In a WWI/WWII: Total War you shouldn't be restricted to playing along with history, you should be able to form alliances and make decisions that differ from what actually happened. (For example, if you're playing as Japan, you could decide not to attack Pearl Harbor; if you're playing as USA you could decide to attack Germany early in the game without waiting for Europe to be overrun)

I think the Total War franchise will slowly wither and die if they simply go back and redo an era that they've already done. What separates the Total War games from other games out there is the campaign rather than the battle engine (although the battle engine is quite good). Without the drama and novelty of the campaign circumstances, the battles would get old quickly, which is why I believe the TW:multiplayer so far has been kind of lame.

So far, with every release, they've added different historical elements to the campaign (hordes, religion, gunpowder, discovery of the Americas, American Revolution) that added to the complexity and made the game more interesting as a result. Bringing the game into the present day is the natural next step.

Personally, I think that even if the Total War franchise decides against it, someone will do a WWII/WWI game with full campaign and realtime battles anyway. The market for such a game would be huge - there are already more WWII strategy games than any other time period if I'm not mistaken. There might be some controversy, but controversy sells - I bet every single person on this board would go out and buy a WWII game if it had a campaign like Total War along with realtime battles (assuming it was decent). I know I would. And I will.