The Next Total War

#2
awesome. hope they update Rome TW after that. it's still my favourite, although only because the Shogun one was so basic and outdated in comparison...
 
#4
Great stuff, I was wondering what the next release would be, they either had to go for the American Revolution( but a mod of Empire Total war would suffice, using the same engine, ect...) or WW1. I'm really pleased they decided to go back to shogun TW. The 2000 version was really addictive even with 2d characters, although I hope there are not too many guns. Can't wait to throw my samurais against revolting peasants!
 
#6
Not sure how WWII would work - Total War 20th Century maybe covering Turn of the century to the millennium - rifled muskets give way to assault rifles, tanks appear as cavalry die off... would have to have a seriously new game engine though
 
#7
They seem to have missed out the entire Early Modern period, the 30 years war/English Civil War etc.

DC
 
#9
Don't you think there are enough WW2 on the market already? its really hard to create anything that hasn't been done a thousand times before and make it original, have you tried company of heroes?
I'm glad total war is going back to its roots. Total war and Modern warfare don't really mix in my opinion. Furthermore playing the campaign map as the Germans would be very unPC and still politically sensitive....The exclusion of slavery in the Empire total war franchise was a subtle hint that the developers want to stay clear from any "dark" aspects of modern history.
 
#10
I do play CC5 and it's various add-on's a lot, and I enjoy them. I just think the total war series is a step on from them without going into some of the silliness found in other games.

I agree about the sensitivity, but would be happy with a similar battle engine to fight the battles, but not have too much of the grand strategy.
 
#12
bigpod said:
...but would be happy with a similar battle engine to fight the battles
for a WW2 game? i couldn't disagree more. the TW battle engine is perfect for pitched hand to hand combat, with arrows etc. cannon work well. but in my opinion, they had to tweak it way too much away from realism once they got into massed ranks of firearms.

do you seriously think that a volley of 40 rifles at point blank range would produce only 3 casualties, as we often see in ETW / NTW? they have to massively downgrade the effectiveness of firearms just to ensure the game is playable. if an entire 120 man unit got wiped out with three volleys and a bit of grapeshot, the game would be over far too quickly.

in my opinion, the game engine was at its best in the rome era: hand to hand, javelins and arrows. in shogun, arquebusiers were okay because it was primitive, inaccurate firearms which were not as likely to inflict mass casualties quickly (esp. factoring in reload time etc).

cannon work well and are a vital part of sieges etc. but massed ranks of firearms... like i say, it's unrealistic and they had to downgrade the effects. in reality, 2 units of 120 men standing 20m apart firing volley after volley... if they reflected real casualties, units would be written down much quicker.

so expanding that in modern era warfare would not work for a number of reasons. firstly, the range of the weapons is already artificially shortened - unrealistically so. that would be exacerbated with more modern weapons.

secondly, the engine is designed for formation-based combat. it's simply not suitable for low-level combat, seeking cover etc. the cover system in TW is shite. it is not workable for them to create a cover system with individual firing positions; it's massed ranks and lines of blokes that theirs is suitable for.

artillery and mortars would be devastatingly effective. machine guns would make mincemeat out of any kind of formation stood in the open.

there are simply too many factors which make it unworkable, in my opinion. you only have to look at models like CC5, Brothers in Arms, Company of Heroes etc to see the kind of model which works: cover, small units and lots of ground to play with.

TW works on a different dynamic and is a master of the field. set piece battles, formations of blokes and grisly hand to hand. i personally thought they were taking a huge risk going to the Napoleonic era and, as expected, that had to artifically reduce the effectiveness of firearms in order to make it "work".

they've done exactly the right thing in going backwards. Shogun, then Rome, should be updated and remade. i would buy both. and the medieval era was their favourite in terms of variety and interesting politics; expect to see that one done too.

anything before the napoleonic time is fair game; anything after that, i would suggest, is likely to fall on its face if they try to use anything like the same battle model...
 
#13
CRmeansCeilingReached said:
bigpod said:
...but would be happy with a similar battle engine to fight the battles
for a WW2 game? i couldn't disagree more. the TW battle engine is perfect for pitched hand to hand combat, with arrows etc. cannon work well. but in my opinion, they had to tweak it way too much away from realism once they got into massed ranks of firearms.

do you seriously think that a volley of 40 rifles at point blank range would produce only 3 casualties, as we often see in ETW / NTW? they have to massively downgrade the effectiveness of firearms just to ensure the game is playable. if an entire 120 man unit got wiped out with three volleys and a bit of grapeshot, the game would be over far too quickly.

in my opinion, the game engine was at its best in the rome era: hand to hand, javelins and arrows. in shogun, arquebusiers were okay because it was primitive, inaccurate firearms which were not as likely to inflict mass casualties quickly (esp. factoring in reload time etc).

cannon work well and are a vital part of sieges etc. but massed ranks of firearms... like i say, it's unrealistic and they had to downgrade the effects. in reality, 2 units of 120 men standing 20m apart firing volley after volley... if they reflected real casualties, units would be written down much quicker.

so expanding that in modern era warfare would not work for a number of reasons. firstly, the range of the weapons is already artificially shortened - unrealistically so. that would be exacerbated with more modern weapons.

secondly, the engine is designed for formation-based combat. it's simply not suitable for low-level combat, seeking cover etc. the cover system in TW is shite. it is not workable for them to create a cover system with individual firing positions; it's massed ranks and lines of blokes that theirs is suitable for.

artillery and mortars would be devastatingly effective. machine guns would make mincemeat out of any kind of formation stood in the open.

there are simply too many factors which make it unworkable, in my opinion. you only have to look at models like CC5, Brothers in Arms, Company of Heroes etc to see the kind of model which works: cover, small units and lots of ground to play with.

TW works on a different dynamic and is a master of the field. set piece battles, formations of blokes and grisly hand to hand. i personally thought they were taking a huge risk going to the Napoleonic era and, as expected, that had to artifically reduce the effectiveness of firearms in order to make it "work".

they've done exactly the right thing in going backwards. Shogun, then Rome, should be updated and remade. i would buy both. and the medieval era was their favourite in terms of variety and interesting politics; expect to see that one done too.

anything before the napoleonic time is fair game; anything after that, i would suggest, is likely to fall on its face if they try to use anything like the same battle model...
bump.
 
#14
Xoums said:
I suppose that means you want a response. CR may well be right in his analysis that the TW engine would not work for a WWII/Modern game. I would just like something that will allow a modern game in a decent 3D environment. I reaally enjoy CC5, but would love to be able to zoom down to individual unit level in a similar way that TW can. It would also need to be a strategy/tactics game, not a resource management game (during the battle segments). The engine of Company of Heroes would also be brilliant, but I don't like the gameplay of that at all, as it is all about unrealistic resource management.

Just my thoughts.
 
#15
bigpod said:
Xoums said:
I suppose that means you want a response. CR may well be right in his analysis that the TW engine would not work for a WWII/Modern game. I would just like something that will allow a modern game in a decent 3D environment. I reaally enjoy CC5, but would love to be able to zoom down to individual unit level in a similar way that TW can. It would also need to be a strategy/tactics game, not a resource management game (during the battle segments). The engine of Company of Heroes would also be brilliant, but I don't like the gameplay of that at all, as it is all about unrealistic resource management.

Just my thoughts.
You got me all wrong, I was merely seconding what CRmeansCeilingReached was saying =). My views on why TW would not suit a Modern warfare context are exactly the same.
I also agree with you about the resource management being a pain n the ass in CCH.
There was an old 2d second world war game that was really good i think it was Sudden Strike, I only played the first one and really enjoyed it.
 
#17
some of the close combat people did do a 3D version some years later, based around normandy. but it was utter shite. can't even remember the name, it was so bad.

only mention it because it was closer to the TW 3D engine. except awful :)
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
I think that TW could possibly go as far as parts of WW1 at a stretch, but no further for the reasons mentioned above. The Crimea has never been touched on to my knowledge, and the US civil war/Indian wars might be interesting.
However, replaying the Somme etc might be a bit depressing... Not sure how aircraft could be included as well. Naval battles could be a LOT of fun...
 
#19
The American civil war could easily be done using the NTW engine, It could make for a nice extension. The peninsular campaign looks ok too and its cheap.
 
#20
Dashing_Chap said:
They seem to have missed out the entire Early Modern period, the 30 years war/English Civil War etc.

DC
I would love to see this period made, you'd get an interesting mix of ranged and close combat. Plus the English Civil War would be a great campaign to fight, several factions could be available Royalist, Parliamentarian, Coventener Scots, Irish etc. You'd get to try out the 'what if' factor of the Royalists winning.

I had a look at some press releases and very early reviews of Shogun 2 last night, and so far all looks good. They're going back to a simpler game, 40 odd unit types, 8 or so factions only one theatre of war (Re Empire) and a more story driven campaign in an effort to get back some of the atmosphere from the original Shogun. I loved the first version of Shogun and just hoped its goping to be better than their latest offering, Napoleon.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Mediaeval Gaming and Software 12
msr The Intelligence Cell 14
C The Intelligence Cell 2

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top