Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Total War: Victoria

Tman0617Tman0617 Registered Users Posts: 3
I have spent who knows how long thinking about this topic, and only just thought to write it all down here, even if nobody ever sees it.

Total War: Victoria would be, without a doubt, the best place for Total War to go to next. An amazing setting for diplomacy and trade, personalities and characters, technology and warfare, the Victorian age would check all the boxes that TW fans and devs alike crave. Here's why:

Setting-
The base game would very likely be similar to Empire in a number of ways. The first of these, from the campaign map at least, would be the scope of it. Starting somewhere around 1840, the campaign would be able to encompass the political revolutions in Europe after Napoleon's fall, the Crimean War, German and Italian unification, and numerous famous conflicts such as the Schleswig, Austro-Prussian, and Franco-Prussian wars. Also, adding an Empire-style campaign map with multiple "theatres" like the Americas, Africa, India, or even Asia, would make for immensely dynamic gameplay, and fit the Victorian theme of empire-building. From South America to Japan, Sweden to South Africa, the Victorian era has so many good scenarios around the world that would make this game virtually limitless!

Also, since I know TW LOVES their DLC, this game would have so much potential for that:
-American Civil War DLC, with an expanded map of North America, navigable rivers, and a long exclusive scenario (1 month per turn?) of the American Civil War.
-Latin America DLC, with the South/Central American wars for independence, Mexican-American war, coups and civil wars, and the War of the Pacific.
-Scramble for Africa DLC, with (for the first time ever) the African continent, featuring the Zulu wars and other British colonial wars in South/Central/East Africa, playable African nations, influence system for competing colonial nations, etc.
-Asia DLC, with colonization of India/Sepoy rebellion, French and British in SE Asia, Opium Wars, Taiping Rebellion and warlords in China, First Sino-Japanese War, and ties to Shogun 2 FOTS. Even the possibility for Oceania, like colonization of Australia/NZ

Technology-
What is great about this era as well is the fact that it lies at the integral turning point of technology. In the early stages, much would be similar to the Napoleonic era as far as weaponry, but the tech/research system of TW would come into play massively here as rifled muskets and artillery, breach-loaders, repeating weapons, explosive shells, steam power, and iron armor (the latter two naval of course) make it into a literal arms race. How exciting would it be to actually have your research make a massive difference to your battle effectiveness in the campaign??? And if the campaign ends before the turn of the century, you avoid the issue of the TW engine moving away from linear battles (an issue which mods like The Great War for Napoleon demonstrates). And regarding the technology, it still avoids getting too overpowered or chaotic, while still impacting substantial tactical change. Even with rifled arms and exploding shells, gatling guns and mitrailleuses, you can still maintain linear battles and balance it to make it fun! And let's not forget how amazing it would be to see some ironclads properly implemented (unlike FOTS).

Features-
Here's where, besides the DLC potential, this game would have some appeal for the TW devs (at least the ones who turned TW from a grand strategy game to a RPG). As far as diplomacy goes, what era has more political intrigue, big egos, and large-scale diplomacy than the Victorian era??? Even though I dislike the new approach to RPG-esque character-motivated gameplay, the opportunity to do just that in this setting is very much there. As far as economics goes, this would be the time to return to the Empire/Napoleon style of trade and industry. Trade nodes would place a major importance on naval power, as the larger your empire grows, the more exposed your trade will be to raiding/piracy. When we lost that feature after Napoleon, I was very upset. Similarly, we need to return the external, independent industrial "towns" beyond the walls of the major settlements. The current system works great for archaic periods, where everything was largely self-contained in one little area, but Empire/Napoleon had it right with the small towns dotted around the map providing the industry for each region. I remember when one could actually cripple an enemy economy by sabotaging and raiding those little towns without having to launch a direct attack on the regional capital itself!

Moving past my little rant, there are more amazing features which would be critical to this era. Most important of these, at least to me, is the fort. Bringing back fort battles (and for that matter, deployable forts like in Empire) would add so much dynamic to this era between the rise of fortresses (think Vauban) and the death of the fort (ww1). More than that, I want to see the idea that was introduced in Shogun expanded with the new system incorporated into Rome, Attila, and beyond for mixed battles. Imagine having a coastal fort (or in the case of the American Civil War, a river fort) which you can assault by both land and sea. Imagine having ironclads and coastal batteries dueling it out on one side, while your army advances from the other side to take the fort by land. This could add so much dynamic to ports, bays, rivers, and islands, making it not only fun (again, who doesn't think it would be cool to charge a fort under the covering fire of your fleet) but also challenging, as these historically critical locations suddenly become incredibly dangerous (again, think of the "attrition" done to ships within range of batteries in FOTS).

I doubt anyone will even see this, and even fewer will read through it all, and I especially doubt any of this will reach the eyes of the TW devs, but this is precisely what I want to see in a Total War game. As a devoted, long-time supporter of the TW franchise, I know this series intimately and have thought long and hard about what would and would not work. This is not just a "I want this in the game!" kind of spam post; this is something I have carefully considered for several years. Please, let someone important see this!
«1

Comments

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,916
    edited October 2020
    What will be the playable factions?
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035
    I wouldn't say it's the best to go to next, with what has currently been shown in existing games it would be a disappointment.

    So far the province count hasn't gone that much higher than we've seen in Empire, a number of the conflicts you've mentioned wouldn't be possible without say tripling the current highest number we've seen.

    Would need a more in depth tech tree than Empires and have it be different for different cultures.

    I agree that you'd need to have towns in provinces like back in Empire, just should be rolled in to the province capital tab. The trade nodes don't really fit it however, you'd have all the worlds coastlines shown and either they are settled and trade with those people is possible OR it's going to be colonised by Europeans in the games time frame.
    jamreal18 said:

    What will be the playable factions?

    Would expect the base game to be more limited: Britain, France, Spain, Germany (I'm not sure they could fit enough provinces in central Europe to really have Prussias rise to power), Russia, Ottomans, China, Japan, USA and Mexico.

    I'd expect the pre-order FLC to add some South American nations to play. Not sure about Africa as if I recall most of their great powers were falling by this point.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 28,284
    jamreal18 said:

    What will be the playable factions?

    Considering that such a game would have the entire world as a campaign map it’s hard to say.

    I would expect a start date between 1850 and 1860.

    A good overview can be seen here on that map:


    We also have to consider that the British Empire would be to big to be just 1 faction, so some colonies like Canada, Australia and New Zealand could be their own factions and start as vassals. CA should actually invent a proper Colony system for such a game.

    Hard to say who would be core and who DLC and FLC but overall I would expect the following factions to be playable:
    - British Empire
    - France
    - Prussia
    - Bavaria
    - Russian Empire
    - Austria
    - Spain
    - Belgium
    - Kingdom of Italy
    - Dutch Colonial Empire
    - Ottoman Empire
    - India
    - American Union
    - Confederate States
    - Qiang China
    - Japan
    - Persia
    - Mexico
    - Poland
    - Sweden
    - Brazil
    - Argentina
    - Ethiopia
    - Australian Colonies
    - New Zealand
    - Canada
    - Maori tribes
    - Zulu tribes
    - Boer Republics
    - Native American tribes


    We have several Conflicts during that time period that CA could use for DLCs.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 28,284
    Commisar said:

    I wouldn't say it's the best to go to next, with what has currently been shown in existing games it would be a disappointment.

    So far the province count hasn't gone that much higher than we've seen in Empire, a number of the conflicts you've mentioned wouldn't be possible without say tripling the current highest number we've seen.

    Would need a more in depth tech tree than Empires and have it be different for different cultures.

    I agree that you'd need to have towns in provinces like back in Empire, just should be rolled in to the province capital tab. The trade nodes don't really fit it however, you'd have all the worlds coastlines shown and either they are settled and trade with those people is possible OR it's going to be colonised by Europeans in the games time frame.

    jamreal18 said:

    What will be the playable factions?

    Would expect the base game to be more limited: Britain, France, Spain, Germany (I'm not sure they could fit enough provinces in central Europe to really have Prussias rise to power), Russia, Ottomans, China, Japan, USA and Mexico.

    I'd expect the pre-order FLC to add some South American nations to play. Not sure about Africa as if I recall most of their great powers were falling by this point.
    Yeah it shouldn’t be next because of technological limits for CA but it should definitely come at some point.

    Africa should definitely be part of it, it was a main part of colonisation during the Victorian age and most colonies existed until the end of WW1.

    You would have many conflicts there that deserve to be implemented in a TW game. The uprising of the Zulu tribes, the conflicts between the British Empire and the Boer Republics in South Africa. Belgian Colonial Empire in Kongo. The Nama uprising in Namibia.

    Most of these conflicts happens towards the end of 1800 but it all depends on the time frame of the game. I think it should go from 1840-1900.

    You would also have Ethiopia as the only independent African Nation which would be quite interesting to play as.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,916
    edited October 2020
    ArneSo said:


    So all countries will be playable?
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 28,284
    jamreal18 said:

    ArneSo said:


    So all countries will be playable?
    Obviously not.

    I posted the list of factions I expect to be playable.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,957
    Commisar said:

    I wouldn't say it's the best to go to next, with what has currently been shown in existing games it would be a disappointment.

    So far the province count hasn't gone that much higher than we've seen in Empire, a number of the conflicts you've mentioned wouldn't be possible without say tripling the current highest number we've seen.

    Maybe I misunderstand you but Empire had (according to my google skills) 137 provinces/Regions.

    TW WH2 has 197 in Vortex (may be outdated).
    ME has 295 settlements (perhaps also outdated).

    So I would say that there was a signification increase in settlements, from Empire to now.

    Thou you perhaps want to argue that it isn't enough for a world wide TW Victoria.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,957
    Generally speaking I think TW Victoria is one of the big contenders for next historical big TW.

    The other being M3

    And maybe even another being Pike and Shot.

    It has defiantly attraction in the community and given that we didn't have a gunpowder TW since FotS, it would be a change of pace next to the "sword&bow" TW's.


    I maybe would it start even closer to the end of Napoleon and perhaps go as far to make it the "long 19th century" with going to 1914.

    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 28,284
    SiWI said:

    Commisar said:

    I wouldn't say it's the best to go to next, with what has currently been shown in existing games it would be a disappointment.

    So far the province count hasn't gone that much higher than we've seen in Empire, a number of the conflicts you've mentioned wouldn't be possible without say tripling the current highest number we've seen.

    Maybe I misunderstand you but Empire had (according to my google skills) 137 provinces/Regions.

    TW WH2 has 197 in Vortex (may be outdated).
    ME has 295 settlements (perhaps also outdated).

    So I would say that there was a signification increase in settlements, from Empire to now.

    Thou you perhaps want to argue that it isn't enough for a world wide TW Victoria.
    The best would be to make expansion packs like in 3k so CA would add certain regions with DLC.

    Areas like Japan, South America, New Zealand or Polynesia would come as DLC and would not be on the map from the start.

    This way the map would get bigger and bigger and Ca would not have to find placeholders for cultures that are not playable at launch.

    So the map at launch could for example look like this:


    The other regions would come as DLC together with the belonging factions and cultures.
  • Barbarian BorelordBarbarian Borelord Registered Users Posts: 59
    Yes I definitely want Victoria Total War. And I also still want the Total War of the Worlds DLC for that :D
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,916
    edited October 2020
    SiWI said:

    Generally speaking I think TW Victoria is one of the big contenders for next historical big TW.

    After CA has done the stand-alone expansion for 3Kingdoms which either be Warring States Period or Tang Dynasty, the next major historical might be Medieval 3, Mongols and Renaissance for me.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035
    Lol, "no one will see it" this morning and by the time I finish work quite a few interesting posts on it :p
    ArneSo said:

    Africa should definitely be part of it, it was a main part of colonisation during the Victorian age and most colonies existed until the end of WW1.

    You would have many conflicts there that deserve to be implemented in a TW game. The uprising of the Zulu tribes, the conflicts between the British Empire and the Boer Republics in South Africa. Belgian Colonial Empire in Kongo. The Nama uprising in Namibia.

    Most of these conflicts happens towards the end of 1800 but it all depends on the time frame of the game. I think it should go from 1840-1900.

    You would also have Ethiopia as the only independent African Nation which would be quite interesting to play as.

    Sorry didn't mean to imply it wouldn't be there, meant more in terms of a playable faction. Reason being you rather cover, it was being partitioned and taken over piece meal.

    They could be covered, but they wouldn't be much in the grand campaign with low province counts and their oppositions power.
    SiWI said:

    Maybe I misunderstand you but Empire had (according to my google skills) 137 provinces/Regions.

    TW WH2 has 197 in Vortex (may be outdated).
    ME has 295 settlements (perhaps also outdated).

    So I would say that there was a signification increase in settlements, from Empire to now.

    Thou you perhaps want to argue that it isn't enough for a world wide TW Victoria.

    Ah was trying to recall from a previous discussion, some reason thought it was closer to 200 in Empire which yeah it probably could have used lol.

    But yeah still rather low for a game covering effectively the world.
    SiWI said:

    Generally speaking I think TW Victoria is one of the big contenders for next historical big TW.

    The other being M3

    And maybe even another being Pike and Shot.

    Doing those three in historical order might be the best way to do it, as you can build up the world map with each game and improved tech to allow more details as they expand it.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    I disagree because I found all TWs that go for lots of shooting to be markedly inferior to TWs that go more wide on viable unit types.

    That's why I'd prefer a Pike and Shot TW in the 17th century since that was a period where the transition from melee to shooting as the primary means of warfare hadn't yet fully happened. And since the 17th century also featured plenty of world traveling and colonising, it would offer a wide array of theaters too.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 28,284
    Commisar said:

    Lol, "no one will see it" this morning and by the time I finish work quite a few interesting posts on it :p

    ArneSo said:

    Africa should definitely be part of it, it was a main part of colonisation during the Victorian age and most colonies existed until the end of WW1.

    You would have many conflicts there that deserve to be implemented in a TW game. The uprising of the Zulu tribes, the conflicts between the British Empire and the Boer Republics in South Africa. Belgian Colonial Empire in Kongo. The Nama uprising in Namibia.

    Most of these conflicts happens towards the end of 1800 but it all depends on the time frame of the game. I think it should go from 1840-1900.

    You would also have Ethiopia as the only independent African Nation which would be quite interesting to play as.

    Sorry didn't mean to imply it wouldn't be there, meant more in terms of a playable faction. Reason being you rather cover, it was being partitioned and taken over piece meal.

    They could be covered, but they wouldn't be much in the grand campaign with low province counts and their oppositions power.
    SiWI said:

    Maybe I misunderstand you but Empire had (according to my google skills) 137 provinces/Regions.

    TW WH2 has 197 in Vortex (may be outdated).
    ME has 295 settlements (perhaps also outdated).

    So I would say that there was a signification increase in settlements, from Empire to now.

    Thou you perhaps want to argue that it isn't enough for a world wide TW Victoria.

    Ah was trying to recall from a previous discussion, some reason thought it was closer to 200 in Empire which yeah it probably could have used lol.

    But yeah still rather low for a game covering effectively the world.
    SiWI said:

    Generally speaking I think TW Victoria is one of the big contenders for next historical big TW.

    The other being M3

    And maybe even another being Pike and Shot.

    Doing those three in historical order might be the best way to do it, as you can build up the world map with each game and improved tech to allow more details as they expand it.
    In the North of Africa we would have the Ottomans, Morocco, Tuareg tribes around the Sahara and Mahdists in Sudan as well as the Independent Kingdom of Ethiopia which got later invaded by Italy.

    So North Africa would already be quite interesting.

    Further south we would have Bantu tribes in central Africa and European Colonies around the Africoast (Ghana ect.). So nearly every European faction would have at least 1 Province in that area. Would also be amazing to have the Bantu tribes playable. Gameplay wise they wouldn’t have any gunpowder and would play more like a traditional TW faction with bows, spears and so on. Could be quite refreshing.

    Going further south there would be Nama and Zulu tribes which would also be great playable factions. The Nama because of their revolt against the German colonial Forces and the Zulu because of Shaka Zulu. They could be the same cultural group as the Bantu with maybe a few unique units.

    The rest of the Coast would obviously be filled with European colonial factions again.

    South Africa is where it really gets interesting now. There is the Cape Colony with Cape Town as a Start location for the British Empire.

    Then there are the Afrikaans Boer republics which should be their own “cultural” group with their own unit roster focusing on Guerilla warfare, Citizen Militia and ambushes.


    So overall the African continent would be incredibly interesting during the time of 1840-1900
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439
    I am hoping for Victoria above all else in terms of historical. Really enjoyed the modern choices in RotS and would love them to expand upon it.
  • Barbarian BorelordBarbarian Borelord Registered Users Posts: 59
    ArneSo said:


    Then there are the Afrikaans Boer republics which should be their own “cultural” group with their own unit roster focusing on Guerilla warfare, Citizen Militia and ambushes.

    And most of all their 'commandos': mounted infantry known for their mobility and crack shooting.

    South Africa is one main reason why I really want Victoria Total War.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035
    ArneSo said:


    In the North of Africa we would have the Ottomans, Morocco, Tuareg tribes around the Sahara and Mahdists in Sudan as well as the Independent Kingdom of Ethiopia which got later invaded by Italy.

    So North Africa would already be quite interesting.

    Further south we would have Bantu tribes in central Africa and European Colonies around the Africoast (Ghana ect.). So nearly every European faction would have at least 1 Province in that area. Would also be amazing to have the Bantu tribes playable. Gameplay wise they wouldn’t have any gunpowder and would play more like a traditional TW faction with bows, spears and so on. Could be quite refreshing.

    Going further south there would be Nama and Zulu tribes which would also be great playable factions. The Nama because of their revolt against the German colonial Forces and the Zulu because of Shaka Zulu. They could be the same cultural group as the Bantu with maybe a few unique units.

    The rest of the Coast would obviously be filled with European colonial factions again.

    South Africa is where it really gets interesting now. There is the Cape Colony with Cape Town as a Start location for the British Empire.

    Then there are the Afrikaans Boer republics which should be their own “cultural” group with their own unit roster focusing on Guerilla warfare, Citizen Militia and ambushes.


    So overall the African continent would be incredibly interesting during the time of 1840-1900

    Again, issue I see is the lack of provinces for many areas so they wont have many factions or the factions will be rather weak due to having limited provinces.

    TWs systems don't cover guerilla warfare very well at all and they can't use the historical small scale ambushes to wear their enemy down. British forces will be able to just march a stack and take their provinces, maybe the Boers would be able to maintain as a "horde" type faction mechanic but I'm not sure that would really work for long.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439
    Commisar said:

    ArneSo said:


    In the North of Africa we would have the Ottomans, Morocco, Tuareg tribes around the Sahara and Mahdists in Sudan as well as the Independent Kingdom of Ethiopia which got later invaded by Italy.

    So North Africa would already be quite interesting.

    Further south we would have Bantu tribes in central Africa and European Colonies around the Africoast (Ghana ect.). So nearly every European faction would have at least 1 Province in that area. Would also be amazing to have the Bantu tribes playable. Gameplay wise they wouldn’t have any gunpowder and would play more like a traditional TW faction with bows, spears and so on. Could be quite refreshing.

    Going further south there would be Nama and Zulu tribes which would also be great playable factions. The Nama because of their revolt against the German colonial Forces and the Zulu because of Shaka Zulu. They could be the same cultural group as the Bantu with maybe a few unique units.

    The rest of the Coast would obviously be filled with European colonial factions again.

    South Africa is where it really gets interesting now. There is the Cape Colony with Cape Town as a Start location for the British Empire.

    Then there are the Afrikaans Boer republics which should be their own “cultural” group with their own unit roster focusing on Guerilla warfare, Citizen Militia and ambushes.


    So overall the African continent would be incredibly interesting during the time of 1840-1900

    Again, issue I see is the lack of provinces for many areas so they wont have many factions or the factions will be rather weak due to having limited provinces.

    TWs systems don't cover guerilla warfare very well at all and they can't use the historical small scale ambushes to wear their enemy down. British forces will be able to just march a stack and take their provinces, maybe the Boers would be able to maintain as a "horde" type faction mechanic but I'm not sure that would really work for long.
    In at least 4 years plus I honestly don't think settlements across the globe will be an issue. If you consider how many settlements will be available for ME eventually I don't think setting up the majority of the globe will be an issue. On the other hand a lack of privinces.. deserts, 'the bush' could be used by more guerrilla based armies.

    In reference to guerrilla warfare again, we can't look that far into the future and draw out a major problem. There could be a 100 different ways CA could deal with it.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,957
    late to the faction debate but here are my 2 cents:

    I will start by assuming 8 starting faction.
    It could be more but I'm pretty sure they won't go under 8.

    Now my "top 8":
    First we would have to have the 5 great powers in the game:
    Britain
    France
    Russia
    Austria
    Prussia

    They were the great powers of the time and I don't think a TW Victoria without them would do.

    However, given where they are, that pretty much completes europe, since I can't really see a 6th from 8 faction to be from europe.
    So that would mean no Sweden for example.

    Now if we look outside of europe, we could first look at the Ottomans:
    Not quite far away, but with alot to make them very different from other faction, simple by the nature of them not being "western culture" (yes I know Russia is also distinct but roll with it okay?).
    And of course the would be a "hard" faction given the circumstances of the time.

    Then we would have the USA.
    Very different starting position and probably alot of features that would lend itself to gameplay mechanics (a "slave" and "free" state balance that can sweep into a civil war, for example). Now this could mean that tehy maybe be better for a DLC, because they can be more fleshed out there, but overall I think they would be a starting faction, if not just to appease the US player base. Make no mistake thou: I think the start position alone would make the US worth it and I defiantly would want to play it.


    Now for the last one I would go to an India. Now my understanding is that the UK already annexed alot of it, by 1800, but at least the Sikh Empire was around till 1849 and would lend itself to be an India faction, offering similar like in Empire, a very different set of units.






    So in conclusion:
    Britain
    France
    Russia
    Austria
    Prussia
    Ottoman
    USA
    Sikh (or someone else from India)

    would be my top 8 pics for the starting faction of a TW Victoria.

    Of course more would be welcome.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 28,284
    SiWI said:

    late to the faction debate but here are my 2 cents:

    I will start by assuming 8 starting faction.
    It could be more but I'm pretty sure they won't go under 8.

    Now my "top 8":
    First we would have to have the 5 great powers in the game:
    Britain
    France
    Russia
    Austria
    Prussia

    They were the great powers of the time and I don't think a TW Victoria without them would do.

    However, given where they are, that pretty much completes europe, since I can't really see a 6th from 8 faction to be from europe.
    So that would mean no Sweden for example.

    Now if we look outside of europe, we could first look at the Ottomans:
    Not quite far away, but with alot to make them very different from other faction, simple by the nature of them not being "western culture" (yes I know Russia is also distinct but roll with it okay?).
    And of course the would be a "hard" faction given the circumstances of the time.

    Then we would have the USA.
    Very different starting position and probably alot of features that would lend itself to gameplay mechanics (a "slave" and "free" state balance that can sweep into a civil war, for example). Now this could mean that tehy maybe be better for a DLC, because they can be more fleshed out there, but overall I think they would be a starting faction, if not just to appease the US player base. Make no mistake thou: I think the start position alone would make the US worth it and I defiantly would want to play it.


    Now for the last one I would go to an India. Now my understanding is that the UK already annexed alot of it, by 1800, but at least the Sikh Empire was around till 1849 and would lend itself to be an India faction, offering similar like in Empire, a very different set of units.






    So in conclusion:
    Britain
    France
    Russia
    Austria
    Prussia
    Ottoman
    USA
    Sikh (or someone else from India)

    would be my top 8 pics for the starting faction of a TW Victoria.

    Of course more would be welcome.

    I would add Qing China and Persia as playable factions. Would be weird to have them as placeholders at launch.

    FLC factions could be other European or western nations that can be done easily.
    - Italy
    - Dutch Colonial Empire
    - Spain
    - Belgium
    - Portugal
    - Bavaria
    - Denmark
    - Poland

    For DLC packs I would say there should be culture and Campaign packs.

    Culture packs would add a new culture obviously and that’s it. Campaign Packs would also add a new culture and would come with a mini campaign as well as a map expansion.


    Culture Packs:

    Nations of South America:
    - Brazil
    - Argentina
    - Venezuela
    - Mexico

    Desert Nations:
    - Tuareg tribes
    - Ethiopia
    - Mahdist Rebels
    - X Arabian faction

    Tribes of Africa:
    - Zulu
    - Bantu
    - Nama
    - ???

    Kingdoms of Asia:
    - Siam
    - Malay States
    - Balinese Kingdoms


    Campaign Packs:

    American Civil War:
    - Detailed map of the US
    - Confederate States
    - Several Native American Tribes

    The Boer Wars:
    - Detailed Campaign Map of South Africa
    - Oranje Freestate
    - Transvaal
    - Natal

    Fall of the Samurai (yes as a DLC):
    - Detailed map of Japan (FotS size)
    - Several Japanese factions

    Conquest of New Zealand:
    - Detailed map of NZ
    - Map Expansion to NZ, Polynesia and Hawaii
    - Several Maori tribes (mini & grand campaign)
    - Kamehameha (Hawaii) [Grand Campaign]

  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 28,284
    Commisar said:

    ArneSo said:


    In the North of Africa we would have the Ottomans, Morocco, Tuareg tribes around the Sahara and Mahdists in Sudan as well as the Independent Kingdom of Ethiopia which got later invaded by Italy.

    So North Africa would already be quite interesting.

    Further south we would have Bantu tribes in central Africa and European Colonies around the Africoast (Ghana ect.). So nearly every European faction would have at least 1 Province in that area. Would also be amazing to have the Bantu tribes playable. Gameplay wise they wouldn’t have any gunpowder and would play more like a traditional TW faction with bows, spears and so on. Could be quite refreshing.

    Going further south there would be Nama and Zulu tribes which would also be great playable factions. The Nama because of their revolt against the German colonial Forces and the Zulu because of Shaka Zulu. They could be the same cultural group as the Bantu with maybe a few unique units.

    The rest of the Coast would obviously be filled with European colonial factions again.

    South Africa is where it really gets interesting now. There is the Cape Colony with Cape Town as a Start location for the British Empire.

    Then there are the Afrikaans Boer republics which should be their own “cultural” group with their own unit roster focusing on Guerilla warfare, Citizen Militia and ambushes.


    So overall the African continent would be incredibly interesting during the time of 1840-1900

    Again, issue I see is the lack of provinces for many areas so they wont have many factions or the factions will be rather weak due to having limited provinces.

    TWs systems don't cover guerilla warfare very well at all and they can't use the historical small scale ambushes to wear their enemy down. British forces will be able to just march a stack and take their provinces, maybe the Boers would be able to maintain as a "horde" type faction mechanic but I'm not sure that would really work for long.
    I don’t see it as a problem, African Tribes could work like the Nanman in 3k.

    Latest TW titles managed Guerilla warfare pretty nice with stalk units in lose formation and so on.

    Don’t see it as a problem.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 28,284

    ArneSo said:


    Then there are the Afrikaans Boer republics which should be their own “cultural” group with their own unit roster focusing on Guerilla warfare, Citizen Militia and ambushes.

    And most of all their 'commandos': mounted infantry known for their mobility and crack shooting.

    South Africa is one main reason why I really want Victoria Total War.
    Same for me mate. I’ve been to the Boer Wars Museum in Bloemfontein when I lived in South Africa and it was super interesting.

    The Boer commandos were basically the first soldiers that used modern tactics with camouflage and all that.

    I really wanna see that in a TW game.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,957
    ArneSo said:

    SiWI said:

    late to the faction debate but here are my 2 cents:

    I will start by assuming 8 starting faction.
    It could be more but I'm pretty sure they won't go under 8.

    Now my "top 8":
    First we would have to have the 5 great powers in the game:
    Britain
    France
    Russia
    Austria
    Prussia

    They were the great powers of the time and I don't think a TW Victoria without them would do.

    However, given where they are, that pretty much completes europe, since I can't really see a 6th from 8 faction to be from europe.
    So that would mean no Sweden for example.

    Now if we look outside of europe, we could first look at the Ottomans:
    Not quite far away, but with alot to make them very different from other faction, simple by the nature of them not being "western culture" (yes I know Russia is also distinct but roll with it okay?).
    And of course the would be a "hard" faction given the circumstances of the time.

    Then we would have the USA.
    Very different starting position and probably alot of features that would lend itself to gameplay mechanics (a "slave" and "free" state balance that can sweep into a civil war, for example). Now this could mean that tehy maybe be better for a DLC, because they can be more fleshed out there, but overall I think they would be a starting faction, if not just to appease the US player base. Make no mistake thou: I think the start position alone would make the US worth it and I defiantly would want to play it.


    Now for the last one I would go to an India. Now my understanding is that the UK already annexed alot of it, by 1800, but at least the Sikh Empire was around till 1849 and would lend itself to be an India faction, offering similar like in Empire, a very different set of units.






    So in conclusion:
    Britain
    France
    Russia
    Austria
    Prussia
    Ottoman
    USA
    Sikh (or someone else from India)

    would be my top 8 pics for the starting faction of a TW Victoria.

    Of course more would be welcome.

    I would add Qing China and Persia as playable factions. Would be weird to have them as placeholders at launch.
    there are good choices. Persia or "China" could maybe replace the Ottomans, if we really see only 8.
    If we see more then 8, then the 2 are very good choices as well.

    FLC factions could be other European or western nations that can be done easily.
    - Italy
    - Dutch Colonial Empire
    - Spain
    - Belgium
    - Portugal
    - Bavaria
    - Denmark
    - Poland

    If we get alot of factions, and they are easier then WH races so it is possible, then I could see this list either as FLC or start factions or DLC factions.

    But if I would have to rate them, I would put the Dutch in the top spot, because they do seem very intresting, for the same reasons they did in Empire.

    Spain would also be a great canidate and possible better then the Dutch.

    "Italy" is a bit tricky...

    Denmark could be a dark horse, since it certainly had the ambitions of a great power at some time during the 19th century (thou they perhaps shouldn't have picked out prussia, for a land army duel...)

    Poland doesn't really exist in this time.

    Belgium is a bit meh.
    They do, what the dutch do, but I personally find myself more interested playing dutch then belgium...

    Bavaria wouldn't be the worse thing, but a third german faction (Austria would be at start of the game, a german faction)?
    I don't really see that happen. Not if we have really "global" ambitions with the game.

    For DLC packs I would say there should be culture and Campaign packs.

    Culture packs would add a new culture obviously and that’s it. Campaign Packs would also add a new culture and would come with a mini campaign as well as a map expansion.

    the thing with campaign packs is, that CA always tries to do them, but gets kinda clearly told form the player base, that they like stuff for the main campaign more...


    Nations of South America:
    - Brazil
    - Argentina
    - Venezuela
    - Mexico

    very solid, nothing to complain, from my view.

    Desert Nations:
    - Tuareg tribes
    - Ethiopia
    - Mahdist Rebels
    - X Arabian faction

    Tribes of Africa:
    - Zulu
    - Bantu
    - Nama
    - ???

    I would have to admit that I don't know enough over those eras at that time to name any different.

    Kingdoms of Asia:
    - Siam
    - Malay States
    - Balinese Kingdoms

    Not bad choices, but I would rate "japan" (if on the map) and Korea also viable.
    And Vitnam.

    American Civil War:
    - Detailed map of the US
    - Confederate States
    - Several Native American Tribes

    I know this will be controversial, but I really hope the US civil war would be a game mechanic for the main campaign not a separate campaign.
    I know fans of this conflict are think it is worth all the campaigns, games and game series for that matter in the world.
    But I have the feeling that for the TW base, it is just another war and not the most intresting ever in they live.

    Also my point against campaign packs stands:
    players seem to like stuff for the main campaign more then other campaigns.

    The Boer Wars:
    - Detailed Campaign Map of South Africa
    - Oranje Freestate
    - Transvaal
    - Natal


    same as US Civil war.

    Fall of the Samurai (yes as a DLC):
    - Detailed map of Japan (FotS size)
    - Several Japanese factions


    FotS already exist.

    Conquest of New Zealand:
    - Detailed map of NZ
    - Map Expansion to NZ, Polynesia and Hawaii
    - Several Maori tribes (mini & grand campaign)
    - Kamehameha (Hawaii) [Grand Campaign]


    okay never would have considered to be honest.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035


    In at least 4 years plus I honestly don't think settlements across the globe will be an issue. If you consider how many settlements will be available for ME eventually I don't think setting up the majority of the globe will be an issue. On the other hand a lack of privinces.. deserts, 'the bush' could be used by more guerrilla based armies.

    In reference to guerrilla warfare again, we can't look that far into the future and draw out a major problem. There could be a 100 different ways CA could deal with it.

    Again, in 10 years the improvement hasn't been enough. Would say they'd need to double the current highest to get close to covering it.

    We rather can, there's been lots of cases of it in history and they haven't done much to make it viable. It is either just an annoying raiding malus or a unit deployment ability.
    ArneSo said:


    I don’t see it as a problem, African Tribes could work like the Nanman in 3k.

    Latest TW titles managed Guerilla warfare pretty nice with stalk units in lose formation and so on.

    Don’t see it as a problem.

    They wouldn't be like them though. Nanman have a lot of provinces they can take while the Han are distracted. Not such an issue with the scale of Victoria and the power they face.

    Not from my experience. Only issue guerilla warfare has done is me needing to use two stacks to chase them down across the map rather than pushing on to the next war.
    ArneSo said:


    Same for me mate. I’ve been to the Boer Wars Museum in Bloemfontein when I lived in South Africa and it was super interesting.

    The Boer commandos were basically the first soldiers that used modern tactics with camouflage and all that.

    I really wanna see that in a TW game.

    Yeah be an interesting take for TW, Britain changed to the khaki colours as a result from the red. Guess mechanically it would reduce the range they can be spotted from maybe? and/or give advantage to hiding in cover.

    I agree that campaign packs are often a bit meh, due to the lack of additions to the overall game they bring. So hopefully they'd mix it. Focus more on a set war and add depth to the factions of the region to the grand campaign. Could be a way to expand the game roster as well by using these packs as faction packs as well.
  • Aranos92Aranos92 Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited October 2020
    Thanks @Tman0617 ! You just anticipated me, i had the same idea to propose a Total War: Victoria in the form you comprehensively indicated. I don't know why CA didn't even consider to do something like this after Napoleon or after Shogun II Fall of the Samurai. I'll hope that they will consider to do something like this in the next future!
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035
    Aranos92 said:

    Thanks @Tman0617 ! You just anticipated me, i had the same idea to propose a Total War: Victoria in the form you comprehensively indicated. I don't know why CA didn't even consider to do something like this after Napoleon or after Shogun II Fall of the Samurai. I'll hope that they will consider to do something like this in the next future!

    Likely because of the tech wasn't up to it. Performance issues, play and quite likely the costs of making it earlier.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,957
    Commisar said:

    Aranos92 said:

    Thanks @Tman0617 ! You just anticipated me, i had the same idea to propose a Total War: Victoria in the form you comprehensively indicated. I don't know why CA didn't even consider to do something like this after Napoleon or after Shogun II Fall of the Samurai. I'll hope that they will consider to do something like this in the next future!

    Likely because of the tech wasn't up to it. Performance issues, play and quite likely the costs of making it earlier.
    also remaking Shogun and later Rome was probably pretty tempting.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Tman0617Tman0617 Registered Users Posts: 3
    Completely forgot about this thread and only just coming back to it a year after posting it! Amazing to see such a reception for this idea. While I love to see everyone's thoughts on campaign mechanics, what about some of the other things I mentioned?

    Most important to me, as far as game mechanics go, are forts and naval battles. Especially if the game has any relation to the ACW, Crimean War, or (let's face it) late 19th century France, forts would play a huge part in the campaign. And part of that means coastal and river forts! Imagine having the ability to pit ships against coastal batteries like a modernized version of Rome II/Attila/ToB artillery ships bombarding cities; or having a deployment point along the beach for your embarked army to "come ashore" (eliminates the awkward need for transport ships physically delivering them ashore) to link up with a force advancing overland. Naval fire support for your troops securing a river or coastal area. Batteries able to sink vessels, making fortified ports and rivers crucial to a campaign.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035
    I think the only thing I didn't comment on was the forts and combined battles.

    Personally having replayed Empire recently, would say pretty pointless. Only forts worth having were those defending your cities and even then not worth building unless you had nothing else to spend it on. Mechanically the game hasn't changed and that would still be the issue with it. Add in the army cap it's not going to have much defence, I don't see them removing it either. Closest I can see would be the "gates" we have in 3K, some areas having a province with an upgradeable chain to represent a key fort and upgrading gives better garrison and defences on it.

    Combined battles, not really a thing. The fire support like in FotS (although more realistic, they are blackpowder guns not missiles lol) would be the best method to cover it.

    Would expect supplies to be a thing again which would make having access to a local port be key for maintaining a large force over seas.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,597
    edited October 2021
    Nope, I don't see it being a good game. The technology of current CA engine couldn't handle the contrast between world-wide scale and small land battles vs how historical campaigns actually played out.

    1. provinces in TW games have equal potential for development for the most part. Occasionally such as in 3K there are provinces with superior resources or 4 regions vs 2 regions but CA would have to re-invent how the campaign map worked to portray regions with already developed infrastructure vs undeveloped lands that can be exploited by settlers vs colonized lands already full of people and full of dangerous diseases.

    2. map scale, to show most of the world that was being claimed or fought over in the Victorian age would limit the geographic area of most modern nations to only 1 or 2 regions.

    3. playable factions would be Eurocentric and probably not acceptable in current era according the the list proposed in this thread or if CA went strictly by population in 1800 for the top 15 nations this would be the list;

    Qing
    Maratha
    British Empire
    French Republic
    Germanies (including Prussia)
    Russia
    Japan
    Ottomans
    Spanish Empire
    Korea
    Portuguese Empire
    Vietnam
    Kingdom of Two Sicilies
    Persia
    United States

    By 1900 the main movers are Russia, the United States moving into the top 5 and Dutch Indonesia moving into the top 10 while Mexico and Brasil knock off Persia and Portugal in the top 15.

    4. technology advanced rapidly in this era but 90% of it was outside the realm of warfare where TW mostly resides. Armies in 1750 and 1850 were fighting mostly the same with large gunpowder infantry formations, cannon, and some cavalry. Sure within that century guns got better, pikes went away, and cavalry became less central to achieving victory but the biggest technological advances came in other areas with the main military arm whose organization and fighting ability changed the most were navies which CA has repeatedly said in comments they don't want to spend a lot of effort on as after analyzing players behaviour they saw less than 2% of players actually bothered to manually fight naval battles.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
Sign In or Register to comment.