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

[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] Are you thick? No one marched in lines in fucking WW1 why the fuck do we even have this point to discuss? It's fucking stupid since they're very different styles of combat.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35512817]No matter how you twist it. WW1 wasn't Total War.[/QUOTE] you realise world war 1 was the war that basically started usage of the term 'total war' also, saying that the style of battle was so different they'd never be able to translate it into the game. could you imagine naval battles in TW if you were still playing Medieval or Rome?

"Gentleman" warfare stopped being an option when a single soldier with a SM-Rifle could kill thirty men. Trenches are NOT within the concept of the Total War games. Stop being stupid. If they ever do this, they can go fuck themselves, i've got better jokes to throw money at.

Pike and Shot: Total War anyone?

[QUOTE=Nexosz;35513130]You don't have your units in square/line formations, it was all trench warfare, not huge platoons and rectangles walking around a hill.[/QUOTE] I would actually like to see 160 snipers walking in a rectangle up the beaches of Normandy.

I doubt they'll go past the FotS era, because the path-finding and the controlling of 5000 soldiers that are (mostly) not bound in formation would be a nightmare. Either they make a Rome 2, or they take on some more obscure era/location (Asia during the middle ages? I dunno). Maybe they'll surprise the fuck out of everyone (and piss off quite a few) and pick some medieval fantasy universe and make the next TW there.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35514438]Are you thick? No one marched in lines in fucking WW1 why the fuck do we even have this point to discuss? It's fucking stupid since they're very different styles of combat.[/QUOTE] I've already addressed this all you'd have to do is give each soldier rudimentary AI for them to take cover you'd still drag squares for move orders, the soldiers in a platoon just wouldn't stand in lines [QUOTE=Bomimo;35514472]"Gentleman" warfare stopped being an option when a single soldier with a SM-Rifle could kill thirty men. Trenches are NOT within the concept of the Total War games. Stop being stupid. If they ever do this, they can go fuck themselves, i've got better jokes to throw money at.[/QUOTE] you are getting so angry over [i]absolutely nothing[/i] you have no idea what the game would play like because it doesn't exist and a new total war hasn't been announced did your entire family die in WW1 or something [QUOTE=acds;35515400]I doubt they'll go past the FotS era, because the path-finding and the controlling of 5000 soldiers that are (mostly) not bound in formation would be a nightmare. Either they make a Rome 2, or they take on some more obscure era/location (Asia during the middle ages? I dunno). Maybe they'll surprise the fuck out of everyone (and piss off quite a few) and pick some medieval fantasy universe and make the next TW there.[/QUOTE] All the recent developments in the TW series have been focused on making ranged and artillery combat more fluid. It'd seem like taking a step backwards in their game design practices if they just abandoned all their recent, delicate balancing work.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;35515418]I've already addressed this all you'd have to do is give each soldier rudimentary AI for them to take cover [/QUOTE] You say that as if it was easy. The AI has to be way more than rudimentary (unless you want to spend your gaming time ordering around troops that then fuck up your planning by being retards), and you'll have a good 3000 individual units (not to mention they'll have to coordinate with eachother, otherwise it'd just be a mass of uncoordinated individuals and not an army).

[QUOTE=acds;35515400]I doubt they'll go past the FotS era, because the path-finding and the controlling of 5000 soldiers that are (mostly) not bound in formation would be a nightmare. Either they make a Rome 2, or they take on some more obscure era/location (Asia during the middle ages? I dunno). Maybe they'll surprise the fuck out of everyone (and piss off quite a few) and pick some medieval fantasy universe and make the next TW there.[/QUOTE] Warhammer 40K: Total War

[QUOTE=acds;35515522]You say that as if it was easy. The AI has to be way more than rudimentary (unless you want to spend your gaming time ordering around troops that then fuck up your planning by being retards), and you'll have a good 3000 individual units (not to mention they'll have to coordinate with eachother, otherwise it'd just be a mass of uncoordinated individuals and not an army).[/QUOTE] Company of heroes already does this pretty much perfectly, and that game came out years ago. It's really just a matter of scale. Individual soldiers in TW already have their own pathfinding, and since CA is more than likely going to introduce a new engine for the next TW, it's probably safe to say that we're going to see new technology like this either way.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;35515264]Pike and Shot: Total War anyone?[/QUOTE] I want Assyria total war. Assyria always wins because their the only ones with Iron.

Come here for some good times [url]https://www.youtube.com/user/Russellxkiller?feature=mhee[/url]

[QUOTE=RussellxKillr;35515593]Come here for some good times [url]https://www.youtube.com/user/Russellxkiller?feature=mhee[/url][/QUOTE] leave forever

[QUOTE=Sector 7;35515569]Company of heroes already does this pretty much perfectly, and that game came out years ago. It's really just a matter of scale. Individual soldiers in TW already have their own pathfinding, and since CA is more than likely going to introduce a new engine for the next TW, it's probably safe to say that we're going to see new technology like this either way.[/QUOTE] Company of heroes is centered around company combat, aka 100 men vs 100 men. total war is army combat, aka 1000+ vs 1000+

[QUOTE=Killerjc;35515648]Company of heroes is centered around company combat, aka 100 men vs 100 men. total war is army combat, aka 1000+ vs 1000+[/QUOTE] as I said, it's a matter of scale, and CoH includes a lot of detail that would be unnecessary in a TW. It wouldn't necessarily be easy, but it's far from impossible.

If you'd want to depict combat at say battalion or brigade/regiment+ level, I'd argue that there would be a need to code in AI that acts as the company, platoon and squad leaders. That or you abstract the lower command levels appropriate to the game's level of detail.

[QUOTE=theseltsamone;35515564]Warhammer 40K: Total War[/QUOTE] Is it bad that I see this working [i]really[/i] well?

[QUOTE=ThatCrazyGmanV2;35517318]Is it bad that I see this working [i]really[/i] well?[/QUOTE] I can't imagine it working well at all.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35514472]"Gentleman" warfare stopped being an option when a single soldier with a SM-Rifle could kill thirty men. Trenches are NOT within the concept of the Total War games. Stop being stupid. If they ever do this, they can go fuck themselves, i've got better jokes to throw money at.[/QUOTE] Wow you mad? Ww1 total war could totally work. There's no reason why it wouldn't work. Shooting someone in the face has never been very noble. [editline]11th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;35515264]Pike and Shot: Total War anyone?[/QUOTE] Yeah i would like to see a total war with puffy clothing and silly hats. Medieval 2 didn't do it well enough.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;35517363]I can't imagine it working well at all.[/QUOTE] Well, the tabletop works on many of the same mechanics that TW does. Morale, direct line of sight, coherency, charge bonuses, etc.

Pirates: Total War. That is all.

Jurassic: Total War. Called it already.

[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;35517621]Pirates: Total War. That is all.[/QUOTE] Barbarossa would win every time though!

[QUOTE=Chocolate.;35517899]Jurassic: Total War. Called it already.[/QUOTE] 3000 Raptors charging at the stegosauruses' main line while pterodactyls divebomb the raptors from overhead... Glorious

[QUOTE=acds;35515400]I doubt they'll go past the FotS era, because the path-finding and the controlling of 5000 soldiers that are (mostly) not bound in formation would be a nightmare. Either they make a Rome 2, or they take on some more obscure era/location (Asia during the middle ages? I dunno). Maybe they'll surprise the fuck out of everyone (and piss off quite a few) and pick some medieval fantasy universe and make the next TW there.[/QUOTE] An official version of Third Age:Total War. :3

[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;35517621]Pirates: Total War. That is all.[/QUOTE] Cutthroats: Terrors of the high seas You're welcome. [editline]11th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Rainboo;35518296]An official version of Third Age:Total War. :3[/QUOTE] I dreamt about that. Imagine that mod with Quardcore support and the Campaign Map features from the Warscape entries. Holy shit! The charge of the Rohirrim! [editline]11th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Broguts;35517924]Barbarossa would win every time though![/QUOTE] It's not like he can't die, it's just that no one will let him be dead.

I would be happy if they kept the FOTS stuff and made it on an Empire like scale.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35518706]Cutthroats: Terrors of the high seas You're welcome. [editline]11th April 2012[/editline] I dreamt about that. Imagine that mod with Quardcore support and the Campaign Map features from the Warscape entries. Holy shit! The charge of the Rohirrim! [editline]11th April 2012[/editline] It's not like he can't die, it's just that no one will let him be dead.[/QUOTE] No, I mean the Ottoman pirate that made Algeria.

This is what happens when i get too caught up in fiction...

A Total War game involving two whole eras would be great.