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

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37153524]You guys just aren't thinking outside of the box. A WWI Total War game likely wouldn't be anything like the others as far as control, but we could still have the grand scale. Everyone just bitches about trenches and historically what happened, but since when has Total War even been close to historically accurate?[/QUOTE] A Grand scale WW1 game could definitely be made but not with the game mechanics that make up Total War.

You can have your WWI [grand] tactical game, for example by making the fundamental maneuver unit a battalion, have individual units represent companies, and the battle drills (rushes, taking cover etc) are automated with the assumption that the soldiers are doing it right within the framework of their training and doctrine. This article by Bruce Menning (author of the excellent study on the post-Crimea Imperial Russian Army, [I]Bayonets Before Bullets[/I]) is good for overviewing the changes in the last decades of the 19th century through the 20th century. Check out the section "Military Art’s Changing Nature". [url]http://www.history.army.mil/books/OpArt/introduction.htm[/url] This is what he points about as the principal changes: [quote] - The evolution of the modern industrial state during the nineteenth century enabled governments to tap vast manpower resources to produce true mass armies based on the cadre and reserve principle or recruitment and organization. - The application of steam and electricity to military ends enabled governments to mobilize these armies and project them into potential theaters with unprecedented rapidity and predictability. - The size of these armies and their preparation for deployment in future conflict mandated the application of industrial-style planning and directing methods. - The new firepower based first on rifled, breech-loading weaponry, then on its magazine-fed, smokeless powder variant, increased lethality and ranges and with them, the scale of modern combat.[/quote]

It would be possible, but not feasible due to the cost of producing an AI that could actually do that properly. Furthermore, when have Creative Assembly ever created good total war AI?

I'd rather see a Total War game that takes place from 1850-1895 in Europe, America and Africa. Colonial land grabs would be fun, if you could play as an African tribe. The American Civil War would just be a programmed event from 1861-65, with the Union winning if you weren't playing as them. Unless, you played as an external power and worked alongside one of them, or as one of them. Win the Civil war as the south, march on to Canada, etc. etc. Breech-Loading rifles would condense line infantry, yes, but also make them less defended when against each-other.

[QUOTE=Killerjc;37153668]It would be possible, but not feasible due to the cost of producing an AI that could actually do that properly. Furthermore, when have Creative Assembly ever created good total war AI?[/QUOTE] You got me there. I would like to see one that starts with the American Civil War and continues from there, enabling you to play as almost any major country. Also, I wish the games had smaller regions. Conquering all of France in 5 turns because I besieged Paris feel cheap as fuck. I kind of wish they replaced the current campaign with something more realistic like the Paradox Grand Strategy games. That would be amazing.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37154180]Breech-Loading rifles would condense line infantry, yes, but also make them less defended when against each-other.[/QUOTE] Not sure what you mean, could you explain further?

I guess he means suppression.

To the guy who said making AI would be incredibly hard/expensive for WW1 troops to do their own thing... Achtung Panzer, a ww2 game, has AI that does all that charging, taking cover, and firing. On their own. In fact the game has like 0 player in put, the AI does the rest. This game is from a tiny eastern european indie game studio. CA is a AAA dev. They could pull it off fucking easy.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;37154392]Not sure what you mean, could you explain further?[/QUOTE] They would be pretty good at suppressing the enemy, but are easily suppressed themselves. Faster rates of fire also mean it's down to whoever shoots first

Sorry. WWI doesn't happen without raping Total War. Just play HOI or CoH. No reason to fuck up other games. That'd be like asking Arma to include Killstreak rewards a'la CoD because "it could be awesome to experience" or changing dirt into some arcade game (oh wait). Maybe... Let's make Spore more kid-friendly. remove the elements everyone loved from the 2005 demo, Make Final Fantasy Linear, Make Doom 3 a darkness simulator, Dragon Age 2 a ME clone, Dumb down ME plot, Change up Hitman a bit... Everytime a company experiments with an IP with an already established formula (No matter how well the same concept could have played as a new IP), Gamers flip their shit AND we actually never see the old, already working concept again. What would be Ultra win is if they established a parallel IP focusing on more modern conflicts. But still. Most post 1850 conflicts ceased being local and turned into propaganda-bogged "good vs evil" foreign-hostile bullshit. Modern conflicts are shit and uninteresting. The days of worshipped generals are over.

Neither HoI or CoH are WW1 though. [sp]There are mods[/sp]

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;37155334]Neither HoI or CoH are WW1 though. [sp]There are mods[/sp][/QUOTE] They each have a better a scale for modern conflicts. TW is somewhere in between those two.

[QUOTE=Webby2020;37154986]To the guy who said making AI would be incredibly hard/expensive for WW1 troops to do their own thing... Achtung Panzer, a ww2 game, has AI that does all that charging, taking cover, and firing. On their own. In fact the game has like 0 player in put, the AI does the rest. This game is from a tiny eastern european indie game studio. CA is a AAA dev. They could pull it off fucking easy.[/QUOTE] "The game is based upon company-level tactical simulation." -Wikipedia A world war one game would require army level tactical simulation, and you expect CA to do this? Can you even begin to fathom how expensive a rig would have to be to run it? From what I can tell, Achtung Panzer has one extremely large map (or multiple based of a region) with AI waypoints that say "Hey, take cover here!" CA would have to essentially recreate multiple parts of multiple regions in Europe, and THEN put waypoints that tell the AI "Hey! Come over here!" and THEN they'll have to find a way to make it so every battle can have different tactics.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;37155317]Sorry. WWI doesn't happen without raping Total War. Just play HOI or CoH. No reason to fuck up other games. That'd be like asking Arma to include Killstreak rewards a'la CoD because "it could be awesome to experience" or changing dirt into some arcade game (oh wait). Maybe... Let's make Spore more kid-friendly. remove the elements everyone loved from the 2005 demo, Make Final Fantasy Linear, Make Doom 3 a darkness simulator, Dragon Age 2 a ME clone, Dumb down ME plot, Change up Hitman a bit... Everytime a company experiments with an IP with an already established formula (No matter how well the same concept could have played as a new IP), Gamers flip their shit AND we actually never see the old, already working concept again. What would be Ultra win is if they established a parallel IP focusing on more modern conflicts. But still. Most post 1850 conflicts ceased being local and turned into propaganda-bogged "good vs evil" foreign-hostile bullshit. Modern conflicts are shit and uninteresting. The days of worshipped generals are over.[/QUOTE] The things you suggested aren't even in the same league of what I am asking. People like you are the [B]reason[/B] why the game market is stagnant bullshit IPs constantly rehashed. You begrudgingly sit there and refuse to take risks or applaud a company for at least trying new things and instead ridicule them for it. So what if it doesn't turn out right? It's not like that ruins Total War forever. It's nice to try something new and let fresh air into a series, but when you say that's a bad thing and try and stick to the familiar territory you end up with the thousands of game sequels that add nothing, clones upon clones of games that add nothing, and end up with a completely stagnant market with no fresh ideas (You know, the very market the entertainment industry has fallen into) If you keep bludgeoning down every new idea then devs will simply stop thinking of new stuff. If you want to wallow in the same concepts, just play the older games in the series and let the devs experiment with the sequel. Company of heroes is far to small, though HoI Darkest Hour is fucking amazing. It's less about how you play and more about the scale. WWI wasn't all squad based combat until 1917-1918. And if anything wars only got more interesting and exciting. just because war wasn't "revered" anymore doesn't make it any less interesting. In fact, hostilities only increased and ambition was even larger, especially for upstart empires like Germany. The system of war became less about honor and more about larger scale goals. And even since the older eras war the goals were the same: people fought for greed. That is still true. Besides the technology and strategy behind it, little seems to have changed in war.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;37155334]Neither HoI or CoH are WW1 though. [sp]There are mods[/sp][/QUOTE]HoI2's Darkest Hour features a 1914 scenario, so that's not true.

[QUOTE=kamikaze470;37156120]HoI2's Darkest Hour features a 1914 scenario, so that's not true.[/QUOTE] That's true, but I would consider Darkest Hour more of a mod or a different title. But isn't DH a fictional/alternative history game?

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;37156583]That's true, but I would consider Darkest Hour more of a mod or a different title. But isn't DH a fictional/alternative history game?[/QUOTE] no

Let's say we even went for WWII. The only battle we could adapt to TW would be D-Day and possibly maybe a select few confrontations on the east front. Even in WWI, it's still only the trenches and fuck anyone who thinks the trenches were all there was to WWI. They were really only the centre of conflict in France. The rest of the conflict was much more dynamic than that.

I want to see how they would do naval combat for ww1.

D-Day would be the most boring battle in a Total War game considering you wouldn't be able to micro anything. And as I've said WW1 on the western front would be boring cause of trenches and all the other wouldn't work simply because of the way combat worked then.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;37156679]Let's say we even went for WWII. The only battle we could adapt to TW would be D-Day and possibly maybe a select few confrontations on the east front. Even in WWI, it's still only the trenches and fuck anyone who thinks the trenches were all there was to WWI. They were really only the centre of conflict in France. The rest of the conflict was much more dynamic than that.[/QUOTE] Precisely. Trenches not only weren't the only part of the combat but they don't have to be so heavily include in an alternate history game.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37156063] 1. The things you suggested aren't even in the same league of what I am asking. [B]Yes they are.[/B] 2. People like you are the [B]reason[/B] why the game market is stagnant bullshit IPs constantly rehashed. [B]No i'm not. I was fine with almost all of the mentioned. I merely observed the backlash from it. But thanks for being an assuming cunt. Being an assuming cunt is actually what feeds and starts these backlashes.[/B] You begrudgingly sit there and refuse to take risks or applaud a company for at least trying new things and instead ridicule them for it. [B]Yet again you prove your lack of intellectual thinking. I wasn't berating them for experimenting. I was pointing out that experimenting with an already stablished IP is really really stupid and dangerous. It's a way bigger risk than just starting a new IP. Also starting a new IP would result in more happy customers. Take Assassin's creed versus Prince of Persia. Prince of persia was rebooted and people hated it. People even hated the next one after it, even though it went back to its roots. Assassins creed was a team experimenting with PoP that decided that "hey, guys... This isn't PoP. Let's take it somewhere else and keep going with what we've got over there as well." Had other people not subsequently raped PoP, this would be a textbook case of experimenting the right way.[/B][/QUOTE] That's really all i have to say about that. I think reading comprehension standards are too low on this forum. Better fucking pray i never get modded. (lol hahahahahah, i can't believe i said that...) Don't reply unless you think it more through. WWI game from CA would be balls to the wall awesome. Just don't Total War it. Call it something else and apply other systems to it. Sure, for all you want, make it TW-LIKE, just don't change total war into something it won't apply well to. It's about taking what you've established and being careful that it stays what people expect it to be. It's not a full stop on shaking features up or improving/ broadening/ Deepening it. Expectations are associated with a brand. They would receive massive flack for selling something that doesn't fulfill those expectations. What if Nickelodeon started doing Adult films? [editline]10th August 2012[/editline] TL;DR: I'm not against a WWI game from CA. I'm against it riding on Total War and actually not being Total War. Which it really can't be, as we've established. So i'm not bludgeoning innovation. You're just assuming that every innovation has to ride on an established franchise... Wait....... You'd be more prone to buying a flight sim if they slapped "Call of Duty: Airgulls" on it? Because that's what you're saying. [editline]10th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BananaFoam;37156807]Precisely. Trenches not only weren't the only part of the combat but they don't have to be so heavily include in an alternate history game.[/QUOTE] Then it really doesn't translate very well to a Total War game, does it now? Much better as a new IP with different rulesets for both campaign and battle maps, than what is in TW.

Is Napoleonic Wars better than Empire? Any good mods for Napoleonic Wars?

Napoleon vs Empire is an interesting debate. Empire has a large range of territories, but Napoleon feels much more polished.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37157145]Napoleon vs Empire is an interesting debate. Empire has a large range of territories, but Napoleon feels much more polished.[/QUOTE] Agree. Napoleon would have been the ultimate add-on if it was in fact... an add-on. Great mechanics, shit scope. Too few factions, but with Darthmod, that's fixed rather easily. I do love steamrolling as Denmark. Get them Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Brits, Germans back under our feet, where they belong and where they spent most of history. I've yet to REALLY play Napoleon, so i'm hardly a credible source. So i'll obviously advice to get Empire simply due to the scope. Persia suddenly got a presence in America and the thirteen colonies took over India.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;37156818]That's really all i have to say about that. I think reading comprehension standards are too low on this forum. Better fucking pray i never get modded. (lol hahahahahah, i can't believe i said that...) Don't reply unless you think it more through. WWI game from CA would be balls to the wall awesome. Just don't Total War it. Call it something else and apply other systems to it. Sure, for all you want, make it TW-LIKE, just don't change total war into something it won't apply well to. It's about taking what you've established and being careful that it stays what people expect it to be. It's not a full stop on shaking features up or improving/ broadening/ Deepening it. Expectations are associated with a brand. They would receive massive flack for selling something that doesn't fulfill those expectations. What if Nickelodeon started doing Adult films? [editline]10th August 2012[/editline] TL;DR: I'm not against a WWI game from CA. I'm against it riding on Total War and actually not being Total War. Which it really can't be, as we've established. So i'm not bludgeoning innovation. You're just assuming that every innovation has to ride on an established franchise... Wait....... You'd be more prone to buying a flight sim if they slapped "Call of Duty: Airgulls" on it? Because that's what you're saying. [editline]10th August 2012[/editline] Then it really doesn't translate very well to a Total War game, does it now? Much better as a new IP with different rulesets for both campaign and battle maps, than what is in TW.[/QUOTE] Yo never said any of this. You acted like you were clearly opposed to the game and the idea in general, and that you did not wanted to stick to an older time frame. All you had to say was: [B]I don't mind, just don't call it Total War[/B] That's it, that's all you had to say. But no, you didn't. You phrased it in a way that clearly showed your opposition to a WWI game in general, as you pointed out the flaws in the game mechanics and ideas. If you don't want me to be an assuming dick, then actually make your point clear instead of berating me for your own ineptitude in phrasing it.

Why do people want a World War Total War game? We are getting Rome 2, and hopefully Medieval 3 in the future. I, for one, am excited as fuck for Rome 2 and eagerly throwing money at my screen at every chance I see more gameplay/features.

[QUOTE=BadderSanta;37159332]Why do people want a World War Total War game? We are getting Rome 2, and hopefully Medieval 3 in the future. I, for one, am excited as fuck for Rome 2 and eagerly throwing money at my screen at every chance I see more gameplay/features.[/QUOTE] Because the idea of mass infantry charges and devastating artillery salvos fits perfectly into the mindset of the "Total War" genre?

[QUOTE=ewitwins;37159638]Because the idea of mass infantry charges and devastating artillery salvos fits perfectly into the mindset of the "Total War" genre?[/QUOTE] Personally I'm kind of bored of guns in Total War, at least for now. I'm glad that they are going back to Rome to bring back the blades

[QUOTE=Chocolate.;37159681]Personally I'm kind of bored of guns in Total War, at least for now. I'm glad that they are going back to Rome to bring back the blades[/QUOTE] Yeah, if there ever will be a WWI themed Total War game, at least Rome II will freshen it up I was getting tired of Guns and Japanese too.