Total War Megathread V.2: "All of Christendom Will be Awed by this Megathread!" - Games

[QUOTE=timmyvos;35503981]Lots and lots of arrows?[/QUOTE] I was hoping for artillery shells but yeah that too.

Roman naval warfare would be the tits, seeing as how it mostly boiled down to ramming in those days ...But I would still much prefer a WW1 TW than a new Rome.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;35503857]was the battle time limit 40 minutes[/QUOTE] Maybe, didn't know the historical battles had time limits, but if they do then I guess that's what happened, thanks

A Civil War TW would be an interesting feat. The games like, to a degree, to give a bit of a history lesson right? I would love to play some detailed campaigns of the Civil War since that's a conflict significantly more modernized than anything we've seen yet and it could definitely work.

The American Civil War wasn't epic enough in scope to warrant getting an entire TW game.

[QUOTE=The_Marine;35505068]The American Civil War wasn't epic enough in scope to warrant getting an entire TW game.[/QUOTE] I disagree purely because of the sheer size of the nation involved. You could fit most of Europe into the United States, couldn't you?

[QUOTE=ewitwins;35505316]I disagree purely because of the sheer size of the nation involved. You could fit most of Europe into the United States, couldn't you?[/QUOTE] Yet Europe has more history and inter-country and community intrigue. Red VS Blue or South VS North is a giant turnoff. It's why i dislike the Pope, N:TW and the "Shogunate VS Empire" frames of objectives. I guess the Pope is OK since you can tell him to fuck off, but the other two forces you to play that way to succeed.

I hope someday there is a total war style game that isn't turn based, but instead everything is taking place live and you simply zoom in, supreme commander style, onto your towns and armies. A man can dream...

[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;35501905]A remake is the whole idea. Not a Micheal Bay continuation of the Roman Empire :v: I was hoping Rome 2 would have updated graphics, better AI, more units and all the cool shit they've come up with since then.[/QUOTE] Now that I think about it, it would be cool if the campaign started with the Fall of Troy, since according to Roman legend, their ancestors were from there or atleast one of them. Not historically accurate but yeah.

They would never make a TW game based off of a single war. It would be much too linear and you would only get the factions that participated in the war. If it was a civil war game there would be only Union on Confederates, and that would be extremely boring, with no unit variety. WW1 would also not work because the battles at that time period were completely different and weren't managed by selecting 200 person units and telling them all to do something. It was more trench warfare, with most casualties being from artillery bombardments and disease. Shit would suck. The TW series is based on general time periods, not certain wars or specific events that happened in those time periods. A game would suck if it was just about one war, and not countless ones with endless possibilities.

[QUOTE=Nipplestockings;35506140]They would never make a TW game based off of a single war. It would be much too linear and you would only get the factions that participated in the war. If it was a civil war game there would be only Union on Confederates, and that would be extremely boring, with no unit variety. WW1 would also not work because the battles at that time period were completely different and weren't managed by selecting 200 person units and telling them all to do something. It was more trench warfare, with most casualties being from artillery bombardments and disease. Shit would suck. [/QUOTE] you are aware that until the invention of artillery, disease was already the biggest killer in wartime, right? A WW1 Total War would work fantastically, given a little more AI programming. There'd be no formations, but controlling 100-200 men organized into AI-controlled squads would work just as well. Men would take cover individually, and regiments could be divided if necessary. Trenches could be garrisoned like castle walls in Shogun 2. Combat was static in WW1 because generals were stuck in the old methods of warfare, but the player is limited in no such way. It'd have the greatest unit variety in the series. Tanks, aircraft, flamethrowers, mortars etc would all make appearances in the tech tree, along with infantry equipment like gas masks and chemical shells for artillery. In addition, WW1 was also the last period of warfare to feature major sieges of forts. Really, I think the last thing Total War needs right now is another remake - they're moving ahead with their technology and the next TW is going to feature a new engine. It'd be a shame to limit it to Rome's fairly limited scope of content.

A WW1 Total War would be a fail borefest of trenchfoot and stalemate. Did you forget how long it took to extend the trenches by a yard? The last thing Total War needs is to rape itself by doing away with Total War. As i said earlier, i already buy enough jokes with proper punchlines. I don't need one that becomes one without trying.

WW1 would be terrible in TW. 1800-1900 America would be awesome thou. Many wars with different nations(England, Spain, Mexico, Indians) and the civil war.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35507806]A WW1 Total War would be a fail borefest of trenchfoot and stalemate. Did you forget how long it took to extend the trenches by a yard? The last thing Total War needs is to rape itself by doing away with Total War. As i said earlier, i already buy enough jokes with proper punchlines. I don't need one that becomes one without trying.[/QUOTE] Nah it could work if they stick to early ww1. Early ww1 is pretty much linebattles with the difference that all infantry takes cover on ridges, ditches, treelines, etc. There's even accounts of successfully marching against the germans playing music and carrying flags. Trenches could easily be countered by artillery. Like in fots artillery is devastating if you sit still. Just like how they changed some things around in shogun 2, they can also bend reality to balance ww1 a bit better.

What about something set in the future? Naval Battles could become Space Battles and you could have hordes of tightly compact Robots. Then maybe have some Human soldiers, Air Support, Gunships, Tanks, etc.

[QUOTE=sami-pso;35508934]Nah it could work if they stick to early ww1. Early ww1 is pretty much linebattles with the difference that all infantry takes cover on ridges, ditches, treelines, etc. There's even accounts of successfully marching against the germans playing music and carrying flags. Trenches could easily be countered by artillery. Like in fots artillery is devastating if you sit still. Just like how they changed some things around in shogun 2, they can also bend reality to balance ww1 a bit better.[/QUOTE] So you want to base a total war game on a war in which the only attempt at gentlemanly line-battles in Total Warfare was ended with a volley from automatic guns? Sorry. I disrespectfully disagree. I just don't see what fun that would be. We already have Company of Heroes and Men of War for those kinds of games. [editline]10th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=gamerman345;35509057]What about something set in the future? Naval Battles could become Space Battles and you could have hordes of tightly compact Robots. Then maybe have some Human soldiers, Air Support, Gunships, Tanks, etc.[/QUOTE] I was about to bleed from my ass upon reading this, but then i spotted the joke. You're good!

How about motherfucking Bible - Total War Have you lads read the stories in the old testament? That shit was hardcore and intense, they didn't mess around with shit and God was both a bro and a dick. They really fucked shit up and had no problems in slaughtering thousands, not to mention the actual heroes and badasses that murdered the shit out of everyone bloodthirsty-superman style. I would absolutely love it. [editline]10th April 2012[/editline] And mystical stuff and the power of God wouldn't be imbalanced at all, you could either fight for God and he would help you out, but to do so you would've to slaughter entire fucking populations and ruin almost anyone's day, or you could do it the less bloody way but instead God wouldn't give a fuck about you, maybe he would even go and help some other tribe. [editline]10th April 2012[/editline] ie: Great power of mass slaughtering Requires 10.000 penis foreskins

[QUOTE=Nipplestockings;35506140]They would never make a TW game based off of a single war. It would be much too linear and you would only get the factions that participated in the war. If it was a civil war game there would be only Union on Confederates, and that would be extremely boring, with no unit variety.[/quote] There's actually plenty to work with for the Civil War and conflict itself would be interesting from a historically accurate point of view. I disagree on it being boring, that's entirely up to how the developers make the game. By your logic, we could argue that Shogun 2 is a failure of your expectations as well as that covers nothing more than Japan with little to no actual unit variety in itself (even though the game is fun as hell, imo). It lacks the scope of previous total war games and it's clear that that method works quite well. [QUOTE=Nipplestockings;35506140]A game would suck if it was just about one war[/QUOTE] What do you think Shogun 2 is about? or even it's 'expansions'? :downs: Anyway, the next step the developers should make now is a remake. Everyone keep your fingers crossed for a Rome 2.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35509265]So you want to base a total war game on a war in which the only attempt at gentlemanly line-battles in Total Warfare was ended with a volley from automatic guns? Sorry. I disrespectfully disagree. I just don't see what fun that would be. We already have Company of Heroes and Men of War for those kinds of games. [editline]10th April 2012[/editline] I was about to bleed from my ass upon reading this, but then i spotted the joke. You're good![/QUOTE] Oh you mean gatling guns and heavy artillery in fots didn't already do that? The only mechanic they need to add is one that allows troops to use cover.

Guess I'm the only one that absolutely doesn't want to see any more TWs set between 1600 and 1900 at least for a while. Back to swords and arrows please.

could you imagine 2001: a total war odyssey? The entire game is silent except for the soundtrack, and you play 5000 rounds as monkeys with clubs :v:

[QUOTE=acds;35510347]Guess I'm the only one that absolutely doesn't want to see any more TWs set between 1600 and 1900 at least for a while. Back to swords and arrows please.[/QUOTE] I would love a Med3 or Rome 2 after 3 games of line infantry sims. Also, first person Ironclad is so much fun. I cut off a copper frigate and he rammed me, which did jack shit. I turned right into him and fired, which blew him up and set me on fire. RIP Ashley Swift, not a single fuck was given.

[QUOTE=acds;35510347]Guess I'm the only one that absolutely doesn't want to see any more TWs set between 1600 and 1900 at least for a while. Back to swords and arrows please.[/QUOTE] I would like a renaissance total war.

[QUOTE=sami-pso;35511220]I would like a renaissance total war.[/QUOTE] Medieval 2 already covers that to an extent.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35507806]The last thing Total War needs is to rape itself by doing away with Total War. As i said earlier, i already buy enough jokes with proper punchlines. I don't need one that becomes one without trying.[/QUOTE] ...you're saying World War 1 wasn't a "total" war? [QUOTE=Bomimo;35509265]So you want to base a total war game on a war in which the only attempt at gentlemanly line-battles in Total Warfare was ended with a volley from automatic guns? Sorry. I disrespectfully disagree. I just don't see what fun that would be. We already have Company of Heroes and Men of War for those kinds of games.[/QUOTE] That's like saying they shouldn't have made Medieval 2 because we already had Age of Empires. Total War is nothing like any traditional RTS.

I would like a FOTS expansion that allowed you to keep on playing after uniting Japan to fight on a large scale map from about 1876 to about 1900. Wars in Korea, Taiwan, China, Russia, etc. Also the music becoming more louder, patriotic and imperialistic to reflect the power of your empire and its colonial ambitions.

No matter how you twist it. WW1 wasn't Total War.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35512817]No matter how you twist it. WW1 wasn't Total War.[/QUOTE] ...[i]world war fucking one[/i] wasn't "total" war, but the Goshin war was? that doesn't even make sense are you drunk

[QUOTE=Sector 7;35512861]...[i]world war fucking one[/i] wasn't "total" war, but the Goshin war was? that doesn't even make sense are you drunk[/QUOTE] I can't even imagine TW gameplay in WWI or WWII. You don't have your units in square/line formations, it was all trench warfare, not huge platoons and rectangles walking around a hill. Units divided into smaller and smaller groups. You can't do this in TW without fucking the TW gameplay up. And tanks, armored vehicles - how are they going to work? TW is for huge-scaled swords'n'shields/linebattles fights. AoE is like Starcraft, farmthemresources, almost competitive game. Company of Heroes is closer to Dota-like gameplay than TW. Small units, no huge-ass rectangles on the field.

[QUOTE=Nexosz;35513130]I can't even imagine TW gameplay in WWI or WWII. You don't have your units in square/line formations, it was all trench warfare, not huge platoons and rectangles walking around a hill. Units divided into smaller and smaller groups. You can't do this in TW without fucking the TW gameplay up. And tanks, armored vehicles - how are they going to work? TW is for huge-scaled swords'n'shields/linebattles fights. AoE is like Starcraft, farmthemresources, almost competitive game. Company of Heroes is closer to Dota-like gameplay than TW. Small units, no huge-ass rectangles on the field.[/QUOTE] Well it's not like mods of TW games based throughout the late 1800s and 20th century exist. Or even the future and alternate universes.