Total War: World War 1

Warlord_Lu_Bu#2268 · October 2020

This has probably been asked for in the past, but really I think it is a great era in history, that should be remembered and replayed. Most people have a vague idea of what World War 2 was, but not many know what World War 1 was about, who were the main people in charge, the heroes of war, and so on.

Paradox Interactive already cover World War 2 in their game "Hearts of Iron" series and it is a very good game. World War 1 however is on a different scale and would be an excellent project for CA to consider. I don't even know much about World War 1, why it really happened and who was involved.

Now, mankind had achieve such excellent industrious achievements, colonisation was still active and massive empires were still alive.

Who were the main countries during this time?

The Allied Powers consisted of:
The British Empire
France
The Russian Empire
Serbia
Belgium
Empire of Japan
Italy
United States of America
Romania
Hejaz (Arabia)
China (Republic of China)
Greece
Siam (Thailand)
Brazil
Armenia

The Central Powers consisted of:
The German Reich (not the nazi one)
Empire of Austria-Hungary
Ottoman Empire
Bulgaria
Belarus
Courland & Semigallia
Crimea
Don Republic
Finland
Georgia
Poland
Lithuania
Ukraine
Azerbaijan
Somalia
South Africa
Darfur

It should be known that during this world event, the Red Revolution took place in Russia, eradicating the Tsarist regime and it's supporters, some of who fled to Japan and China. Though I think covering an "Asia" theatre might be pointless... and I don't think the CCP would appreciate that.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUcyEsEjhPEDf69RRVhRh4A

^ Is an excellent channel to learn about WW1

I think it would be best to have a "Empire Total War" style map, allowing Europe, Russia, Middle East and North Africa to exist with smaller "zones" like what we saw with the Americas and India in Empire Total War that featured a part of those continents.

We could perhaps see small theatres in Russia covering the Communist uprising or in China to see the Chinese civil war, but I think a map in Europe- North Africa up until Russia would be fine.

Battles would primarily be between Entrenched infantry, artillery, cavalry, tanks and aircraft. There could also be huge naval battles that would be amazing too! perhaps even naval support for land like we saw in Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai.

I would suggest that we start from the year 1890 which would be a decent year for a "sand box" world war 1 era with international events that cause relations to strengthen (or weaken) to kind of guide the AI into following a historic approach.

Most of these World War 1 dudes look pretty damn cool.

Commisar#2307 · October 2020

While I do enjoy games of WW1 it really doesn't translate to the TW formula at all. It would work on the HoI system but would be boring war-wise (get WW1 type combat at the end of Victoria 2)

A number of issues, armies don't work in WW1 style. We have stacks with small AoE. They lose 2 battles in a turn and are wiped out even if they are surviving. So you can't make a frontline. You have static attritional warfare on two fronts but then wide swings back and forth on the others.

On the battle maps, covering the different units in a fun way would be a nightmare. WW1 you see vital mixed unit formations which TW hasn't covered and CA has said they didn't plan to add. Along with a huge amount of micro with it. Squad based LMGs, handgrenades and riflegrenades became vital for the modern assault. If you try games such as CoH it shows the idea of the micro forces end up with.

There's also the issue of handling other elements of the war such as submarine warfare, they don't really fit as a naval unit and not really countered by naval units but by minefields and Q-ships. Airforces and airships which don't do much on the battlefield but have the range to hit rivals capitals. The economy, money was less of an issue than materials, manpower, equipment and experience.

So yeah, the depth of WW1 to see it look and act like WW1 isn't like TW but Paradox style.

Warlord_Lu_Bu#2268 · October 2020

Commisar said:
While I do enjoy games of WW1 it really doesn't translate to the TW formula at all. It would work on the HoI system but would be boring war-wise (get WW1 type combat at the end of Victoria 2)

A number of issues, armies don't work in WW1 style. We have stacks with small AoE. They lose 2 battles in a turn and are wiped out even if they are surviving. So you can't make a frontline. You have static attritional warfare on two fronts but then wide swings back and forth on the others.

On the battle maps, covering the different units in a fun way would be a nightmare. WW1 you see vital mixed unit formations which TW hasn't covered and CA has said they didn't plan to add. Along with a huge amount of micro with it. Squad based LMGs, handgrenades and riflegrenades became vital for the modern assault. If you try games such as CoH it shows the idea of the micro forces end up with.

There's also the issue of handling other elements of the war such as submarine warfare, they don't really fit as a naval unit and not really countered by naval units but by minefields and Q-ships. Airforces and airships which don't do much on the battlefield but have the range to hit rivals capitals. The economy, money was less of an issue than materials, manpower, equipment and experience.

So yeah, the depth of WW1 to see it look and act like WW1 isn't like TW but Paradox style.

mmm... Id have to disagree.

The stacks losing after 2 battles (or 1 if you wipe them entirely) is an issue yes, This can be bandaged by implementing 2 different manpower pools. 1 for Reserved military population and 1 for Active military population. Whatever survivors of a defeated stack would return to the Active military population. In order to address the "front line" issue, there could be heavy attrition and movement point reduction for stacks entering foreign land to simulate guerrilla warfare, while stack vs stack battles would simulate actual battles. But just as in every Total War game ever... there has been no need to follow historically accurate battles in terms of strategic planning and operations

We are already able to use Weapons Teams in Total War Warhammer, the "Skaven" have Mortar squads and minigun squads. The use of the "hybrid" weapons system could also be used between close-medium range combat and long range combat. It doesn't have to be terribly advanced (like most TW games where battles are not).

Thankfully, Total War games are not that "in depth" as they could be, which allows them to remove a lot of the issues that would complicate things. Even in the historical TW games, sieges, governance and battles are not in-depth and we the player, do not have to worry about things such as transport, supply lines, food, ammunition, morale and so on. So this would not really be an issue either.

TejaSchwarzhaar#9835 · October 2020

I agree with all of Commisar's points.

@Warlord_Lu_Bu I don't know how well you are informed about WW1 but pretty much half of the countries you mentioned in the OP didn't even exist at the time.

Also the tactics of WW1 are hardly even comparable to any other era TW has covered before. The TW formula already fails at the trench war. TW is desiged to have big decisive battles and not a years long stalemate.

Warlord_Lu_Bu#2268 · October 2020

TejaSchwarzhaar said:
I agree with all of Commisar's points.

@Warlord_Lu_Bu I don't know how well you are informed about WW1 but pretty much half of the countries you mentioned in the OP didn't even exist at the time.

Also the tactics of WW1 are hardly even comparable to any other era TW has covered before. The TW formula already fails at the trench war. TW is desiged to have big decisive battles and not a years long stalemate.

The countries I listed were listed in Wikipedia...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Powers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I

Have either of you played Empire Total War? you were pretty much able to use trenches, buildings and over forms of cover. it is very do-able in 2020. Just because the rest of the world is stuck in an endless loop, doesn't mean game companies can't push forward!

Commisar#2307 · October 2020

Warlord_Lu_Bu said:
mmm... Id have to disagree.

The stacks losing after 2 battles (or 1 if you wipe them entirely) is an issue yes, This can be bandaged by implementing 2 different manpower pools. 1 for Reserved military population and 1 for Active military population. Whatever survivors of a defeated stack would return to the Active military population. In order to address the "front line" issue, there could be heavy attrition and movement point reduction for stacks entering foreign land to simulate guerrilla warfare, while stack vs stack battles would simulate actual battles. But just as in every Total War game ever... there has been no need to follow historically accurate battles in terms of strategic planning and operations

We are already able to use Weapons Teams in Total War Warhammer, the "Skaven" have Mortar squads and minigun squads. The use of the "hybrid" weapons system could also be used between close-medium range combat and long range combat. It doesn't have to be terribly advanced (like most TW games where battles are not).

Thankfully, Total War games are not that "in depth" as they could be, which allows them to remove a lot of the issues that would complicate things. Even in the historical TW games, sieges, governance and battles are not in-depth and we the player, do not have to worry about things such as transport, supply lines, food, ammunition, morale and so on. So this would not really be an issue either.

That would be changing key elements of the TW system and adding a lot more micro managment for players while also making a world conquest stupidly easy. AI currently can't handle resources well, manpower is going to cripple it.

It is if you want a WW1 TW. It's not going to be a WW1 game if it doesn't look or play like WW1.

They aren't the same. We have artillery in the historical TW games, they aren't in the infantry section. They become specialist squads. This is the basic infantry that makes up the backbone of your army. It has multiple weapon profiles that are active.

We actually do. Food has played a vital role in the TW game since Empire. Recent ones if you lack food you no longer get manpower and armies start to lose men. Morale of forces is vital, you can damage the enemies morale and make the next battle much easier and especially easy to do in sieges.

, and if you cut out large parts of WW1 then it's not going to be a WW1 game.

Warlord_Lu_Bu said:

The countries I listed were listed in Wikipedia...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Powers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I

Have either of you played Empire Total War? you were pretty much able to use trenches, buildings and over forms of cover. it is very do-able in 2020. Just because the rest of the world is stuck in an endless loop, doesn't mean game companies can't push forward!

Wiki isn't a great source and often needs more reading. Most didn't exist as a nation and their resistance in TW terms is more a rebel stack that is also fighting other rebel stacks, the Entente and the Centrals.

Yeah I have, Empire is my favourite game. No you don't have anything like a trench in it. You have a wall you can deploy but that's not the same level of defence as a trench. CA dropped the garrisoned building system as it didn't work in Empire.

This wouldn't be "pushing forward" it would be remaking core elements and alienating the playerbase.

Warlord_Lu_Bu#2268 · October 2020

Commisar said:

Warlord_Lu_Bu said:
mmm... Id have to disagree.

The stacks losing after 2 battles (or 1 if you wipe them entirely) is an issue yes, This can be bandaged by implementing 2 different manpower pools. 1 for Reserved military population and 1 for Active military population. Whatever survivors of a defeated stack would return to the Active military population. In order to address the "front line" issue, there could be heavy attrition and movement point reduction for stacks entering foreign land to simulate guerrilla warfare, while stack vs stack battles would simulate actual battles. But just as in every Total War game ever... there has been no need to follow historically accurate battles in terms of strategic planning and operations

We are already able to use Weapons Teams in Total War Warhammer, the "Skaven" have Mortar squads and minigun squads. The use of the "hybrid" weapons system could also be used between close-medium range combat and long range combat. It doesn't have to be terribly advanced (like most TW games where battles are not).

Thankfully, Total War games are not that "in depth" as they could be, which allows them to remove a lot of the issues that would complicate things. Even in the historical TW games, sieges, governance and battles are not in-depth and we the player, do not have to worry about things such as transport, supply lines, food, ammunition, morale and so on. So this would not really be an issue either.
That would be changing key elements of the TW system and adding a lot more micro managment for players while also making a world conquest stupidly easy. AI currently can't handle resources well, manpower is going to cripple it.

It is if you want a WW1 TW. It's not going to be a WW1 game if it doesn't look or play like WW1.

They aren't the same. We have artillery in the historical TW games, they aren't in the infantry section. They become specialist squads. This is the basic infantry that makes up the backbone of your army. It has multiple weapon profiles that are active.

We actually do. Food has played a vital role in the TW game since Empire. Recent ones if you lack food you no longer get manpower and armies start to lose men. Morale of forces is vital, you can damage the enemies morale and make the next battle much easier and especially easy to do in sieges.

, and if you cut out large parts of WW1 then it's not going to be a WW1 game.
Warlord_Lu_Bu said:

The countries I listed were listed in Wikipedia...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Powers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I

Have either of you played Empire Total War? you were pretty much able to use trenches, buildings and over forms of cover. it is very do-able in 2020. Just because the rest of the world is stuck in an endless loop, doesn't mean game companies can't push forward!
Wiki isn't a great source and often needs more reading. Most didn't exist as a nation and their resistance in TW terms is more a rebel stack that is also fighting other rebel stacks, the Entente and the Centrals.

Yeah I have, Empire is my favourite game. No you don't have anything like a trench in it. You have a wall you can deploy but that's not the same level of defence as a trench. CA dropped the garrisoned building system as it didn't work in Empire.

This wouldn't be "pushing forward" it would be remaking core elements and alienating the playerbase.

When they adopted Warhammer and created a fantasy game with magic and "ward saves" did that not change key elements of the TW system? lol anything can be changed and adapted to suit a purpose. There are ways to automate micro management. TW worlds are already stupidly easy, depends entirely how you like to play them. The AI just needs to be improved to prioritize strategically rather than just giving them cheats to win.

They aren't the same, this is true... but games aren't real life, they don't have to be the same...? somethings cannot be done, some can. Basic infantry can be given toggle-able equipment like access to grenades.

Food has not played a vital role in any of the games lmao. It COULD have and in-depth things like population development through high food rationing and low taxation or limited food supplies on armies, with vital supply lines that if blocked could severely weaken or even kill an army. None of that ever happened, at least not to an extent that it had a major effort. In TW Three Kingdoms, something resembling that is finally starting to happen and in due time, hopefully it will be as beautiful as it's meant to be.

WW1 is made up by the major nations who fight it... everyone else doesn't matter as much, but being in a "Sand Box" means that anything at any time can go differently and cause a different outcome. My desire is to have a game in that period... I don't care so much about having a fully realistic WW1 campaign, I'd go play SJW Battlefield if I cared about that.

Wikipedia's reputation as an area for valid source sdoes not concern me, you can pick and choose whatever sources you like, if you disagree, you'll always find a source that disagrees lol. The point is that countries who sent people to fight in that war, were part of it, whether they existed as a nation or not. There are like a hundred nations within the "Russian Empire" and later the Soviet Union, does history bother talking about them? or do they just label them commies/soviets. It's all subjective to the person talking about them.

The Walls and Fences in Empire worked fine as semi-trenches, I do remember having a few battles in small dug outs and trench-like areas though.. that's odd. How sad that they got rid of the garrisonable buildings, I really liked those.

Lastly, remaking core elements is not "alienating the playerbase" lol what are you talking about? Do you think making Warhammer instead of a new Medieval/Empire/Shogun/Rome game was not alienating the playerbase? or perhaps making Fantasy Troy, instead of a historically accurate and interesting Greek City States was not alienating? no one cares, thankfully the snowflakes who were "alienated" ran away and then came back when their salty tears were swept away.

TejaSchwarzhaar#9835 · October 2020

Warlord_Lu_Bu said:

TejaSchwarzhaar said:
I agree with all of Commisar's points.

@Warlord_Lu_Bu I don't know how well you are informed about WW1 but pretty much half of the countries you mentioned in the OP didn't even exist at the time.

Also the tactics of WW1 are hardly even comparable to any other era TW has covered before. The TW formula already fails at the trench war. TW is desiged to have big decisive battles and not a years long stalemate.
The countries I listed were listed in Wikipedia...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Powers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I

Have either of you played Empire Total War? you were pretty much able to use trenches, buildings and over forms of cover. it is very do-able in 2020. Just because the rest of the world is stuck in an endless loop, doesn't mean game companies can't push forward!

Most of the ones I was talking about existed for a few months in 1918 after the treaty of Brest-Litowsk when the Russian Empire crumbled into a massive civil war. But these "nations" had nothing to do with WW1 and didn't participate in any way.

Yes, I play Empire very often and it's starting to become my favourite TW game. But even if I hadn't played Empire for one second it wouldn't be hard to recognise that taking a bit of cover behind a small wall in a line battle has nothing to do with trench warfare whatsoever.

Commisar#2307 · October 2020

Warlord_Lu_Bu said:
When they adopted Warhammer and created a fantasy game with magic and "ward saves" did that not change key elements of the TW system? lol anything can be changed and adapted to suit a purpose. There are ways to automate micro management. TW worlds are already stupidly easy, depends entirely how you like to play them. The AI just needs to be improved to prioritize strategically rather than just giving them cheats to win.

They aren't the same, this is true... but games aren't real life, they don't have to be the same...? somethings cannot be done, some can. Basic infantry can be given toggle-able equipment like access to grenades.

Food has not played a vital role in any of the games lmao. It COULD have and in-depth things like population development through high food rationing and low taxation or limited food supplies on armies, with vital supply lines that if blocked could severely weaken or even kill an army. None of that ever happened, at least not to an extent that it had a major effort. In TW Three Kingdoms, something resembling that is finally starting to happen and in due time, hopefully it will be as beautiful as it's meant to be.

WW1 is made up by the major nations who fight it... everyone else doesn't matter as much, but being in a "Sand Box" means that anything at any time can go differently and cause a different outcome. My desire is to have a game in that period... I don't care so much about having a fully realistic WW1 campaign, I'd go play SJW Battlefield if I cared about that.

Wikipedia's reputation as an area for valid source sdoes not concern me, you can pick and choose whatever sources you like, if you disagree, you'll always find a source that disagrees lol. The point is that countries who sent people to fight in that war, were part of it, whether they existed as a nation or not. There are like a hundred nations within the "Russian Empire" and later the Soviet Union, does history bother talking about them? or do they just label them commies/soviets. It's all subjective to the person talking about them.

The Walls and Fences in Empire worked fine as semi-trenches, I do remember having a few battles in small dug outs and trench-like areas though.. that's odd. How sad that they got rid of the garrisonable buildings, I really liked those.

Lastly, remaking core elements is not "alienating the playerbase" lol what are you talking about? Do you think making Warhammer instead of a new Medieval/Empire/Shogun/Rome game was not alienating the playerbase? or perhaps making Fantasy Troy, instead of a historically accurate and interesting Greek City States was not alienating? no one cares, thankfully the snowflakes who were "alienated" ran away and then came back when their salty tears were swept away.

Not really, they already had a few magic spells and abilities that had crept in to the past games. It just continued on with that and they were useable by the AI. So far CA hasn't been able to improve that part of the AI since the beginning, this wouldn't seem to change that.

That wouldn't fix it. Grenades would be an active ability, need to be timed for use when enemy is at a set range. With large forces that's a lot of micro that the AI can do instantly but a player would need to pause to do so.

Then you haven't played the recent games. Armies not replacing losses and taking attrition isn't a big deal? -20 public order isn't a big deal? I'm n ot sure if the AI again gets cheats to make up for failure to manage it's food in R2/A/ToB. It has happened again, Napoleon does have supply lines, you can cut off the enemy via roads and ports and stop their force replenishing. It's not overly effective but is possible. I think Tory has as well but not sure how it works as I'm not interested in that game.

It is when you use it and don't read the details. Making false claims undermines suggestions and other statements even when valid. It also makes your take on WW1 more suspect as you might not know that much on it. While true, it undermines you as they would be Russian soldiers in game fighting for Russia..

They really don't translate to the level of a trench.

It is. When you make a complete turn of how people need to address the game it will alienate the playerbase. No it wasn't as they continued to make historical games. CA seems to have had rather mixed feelings on Troy, they did give it away on release and have since given away the first DLC for free as well...which seems a strange thing if you think it would market well. And no there's no sign they have came back and SEGA has experience of a studio changing core gameplay elements and alienating the playerbase, they cut off support for the game after only a few months and were then outsourced to microsoft.

davedave1124#4773 · October 2020

I'm not sure how it would work.. representing a trench system that covered the entirety on France, or the tactics used like a creeping barrage to cover infantry.

Warlord_Lu_Bu#2268 · October 2020

Commisar said:

Warlord_Lu_Bu said:
When they adopted Warhammer and created a fantasy game with magic and "ward saves" did that not change key elements of the TW system? lol anything can be changed and adapted to suit a purpose. There are ways to automate micro management. TW worlds are already stupidly easy, depends entirely how you like to play them. The AI just needs to be improved to prioritize strategically rather than just giving them cheats to win.

They aren't the same, this is true... but games aren't real life, they don't have to be the same...? somethings cannot be done, some can. Basic infantry can be given toggle-able equipment like access to grenades.

Food has not played a vital role in any of the games lmao. It COULD have and in-depth things like population development through high food rationing and low taxation or limited food supplies on armies, with vital supply lines that if blocked could severely weaken or even kill an army. None of that ever happened, at least not to an extent that it had a major effort. In TW Three Kingdoms, something resembling that is finally starting to happen and in due time, hopefully it will be as beautiful as it's meant to be.

WW1 is made up by the major nations who fight it... everyone else doesn't matter as much, but being in a "Sand Box" means that anything at any time can go differently and cause a different outcome. My desire is to have a game in that period... I don't care so much about having a fully realistic WW1 campaign, I'd go play SJW Battlefield if I cared about that.

Wikipedia's reputation as an area for valid source sdoes not concern me, you can pick and choose whatever sources you like, if you disagree, you'll always find a source that disagrees lol. The point is that countries who sent people to fight in that war, were part of it, whether they existed as a nation or not. There are like a hundred nations within the "Russian Empire" and later the Soviet Union, does history bother talking about them? or do they just label them commies/soviets. It's all subjective to the person talking about them.

The Walls and Fences in Empire worked fine as semi-trenches, I do remember having a few battles in small dug outs and trench-like areas though.. that's odd. How sad that they got rid of the garrisonable buildings, I really liked those.

Lastly, remaking core elements is not "alienating the playerbase" lol what are you talking about? Do you think making Warhammer instead of a new Medieval/Empire/Shogun/Rome game was not alienating the playerbase? or perhaps making Fantasy Troy, instead of a historically accurate and interesting Greek City States was not alienating? no one cares, thankfully the snowflakes who were "alienated" ran away and then came back when their salty tears were swept away.
Not really, they already had a few magic spells and abilities that had crept in to the past games. It just continued on with that and they were useable by the AI. So far CA hasn't been able to improve that part of the AI since the beginning, this wouldn't seem to change that.

That wouldn't fix it. Grenades would be an active ability, need to be timed for use when enemy is at a set range. With large forces that's a lot of micro that the AI can do instantly but a player would need to pause to do so.

Then you haven't played the recent games. Armies not replacing losses and taking attrition isn't a big deal? -20 public order isn't a big deal? I'm n ot sure if the AI again gets cheats to make up for failure to manage it's food in R2/A/ToB. It has happened again, Napoleon does have supply lines, you can cut off the enemy via roads and ports and stop their force replenishing. It's not overly effective but is possible. I think Tory has as well but not sure how it works as I'm not interested in that game.

It is when you use it and don't read the details. Making false claims undermines suggestions and other statements even when valid. It also makes your take on WW1 more suspect as you might not know that much on it. While true, it undermines you as they would be Russian soldiers in game fighting for Russia..

They really don't translate to the level of a trench.

It is. When you make a complete turn of how people need to address the game it will alienate the playerbase. No it wasn't as they continued to make historical games. CA seems to have had rather mixed feelings on Troy, they did give it away on release and have since given away the first DLC for free as well...which seems a strange thing if you think it would market well. And no there's no sign they have came back and SEGA has experience of a studio changing core gameplay elements and alienating the playerbase, they cut off support for the game after only a few months and were then outsourced to microsoft.

Those are your opinions and fine if you believe that, I disagree.

I begin to question by you in particular need to impart your dislike and negativity for a TW WW1 game, rather than I dunno... promote something useful or an alternative?

Do you have a hatred for WW1 or something?

Jam#4399 · October 2020

How are you going to control snipers? Battalion or individual?
Controlling 1 sniper per unit card is underwhelming and having 2 or more snipers per unit card shooting 1 soldier is overkill.

About infantry, they are not deployed by group. They shall always be in loose formation, they shall always be scattered in battlefied.

About Tanks, so how many thanks is an army? How will soldiers going to eliminate tanks?

Jets, how will you suppose to control them? It's unrealistic to have them stay on sky. They shall be constantly moving.

Will there still be formations?

How about siege? Naval Battles?
----------------

I'd rather have Great Northern War.

Commisar#2307 · October 2020

Warlord_Lu_Bu said:

Those are your opinions and fine if you believe that, I disagree.

I begin to question by you in particular need to impart your dislike and negativity for a TW WW1 game, rather than I dunno... promote something useful or an alternative?

Do you have a hatred for WW1 or something?

Because it doesn't fit the TW formula, I want a game that would be fun and interesting to play and give a good feeling of the setting. I and others have, there's plenty of other threads on settings that we'd like to see and additions they can bring to the series but it's standard to keep them in their own threads.

No, I enjoy the historical period of WW1 and have spent a lot of the last few years reading, watching and searching up details of the war for other games and have clocked a lot of hours in WW1 games.

Warlord_Lu_Bu#2268 · October 2020

jamreal18 said:
How are you going to control snipers? Battalion or individual?
Controlling 1 sniper per unit card is underwhelming and having 2 or more snipers per unit card shooting 1 soldier is overkill.

About infantry, they are not deployed by group. They shall always be in loose formation, they shall always be scattered in battlefied.

About Tanks, so how many thanks is an army? How will soldiers going to eliminate tanks?

Jets, how will you suppose to control them? It's unrealistic to have them stay on sky. They shall be constantly moving.

Will there still be formations?

How about siege? Naval Battles?
----------------

I'd rather have Great Northern War.

mmm... now this type of comment is useful.

Sniper units yes, it would be underwhelming to have 1 sniper unit per card... though it would just be like a "hero" card in TW Warhammer. I suppose if we had a Team of snipers operating together in 1 card, that would be more effective... 6 shots, 6 kills per 3-5 seconds at long range? doesn't sound bad to me xD

I think infantry at this time were primarily used un human waves rather than Squads. Squads seem to be more of a WW2 thing. While there might have been squads in WW1, the main battles seemed to have been between lines of infantry shoot at each other and then moving from trench to trench. An organised but brutal battle.

Tanks could be considered a "hero" unit if we use the terms currently used in Warhammer, like the "Steam Tank" of the Empire. I imagine it would have a health bar like most RTS games (even COH) and would require aircraft or anti-tank cannons to destroy it easily, while infantry would have to (much like Warhammer) grind it down with grenades and other explosives.

Jets I agree, it shouldn't stay still like we see in Warhammer's flying units... I thought that was really silly tbh... and it doesn't allow the flying units to utilize their full capabilities, because every time, they would have to come to the ground to fight. I think flying units should be reserved as a kind of "off map" support attack like we see in Wargame: Red Dragon, where you can call it in, it launches an attack (with a chance of being intercepted by ranged and anti-air) and then flies away until it's cool down, then it can be used again. That would be more effective and useful.

Formations would be difficult, since battles weren't organised like "you shoot me, I shoot you" musket warfare, though again it is possible. In trenches combat units would be in whatever formation the trench is and when they need to begin a human-wave charge, their default formation would be a line formation (as many human waves were like).

Sieges could be fascinating... garrison-able buildings, sandbag walls, trenches, bunkers! it would require far more careful planning and strategic thought to take over an enemy city or military base. You'd definitely have to bring artillery or have air support if you didn't want to watch your army get eradicated by heavy machine guns and land mines xD

Naval Battles could also be great, but honestly... after CA abandoned Naval Warfare for TW Three Kingdoms... I highly doubt they'd even bother thinking about naval combat for a WW1 game if they even considered the game.

Jam#4399 · October 2020

So Snipers will always be fire at will?

Infantry must be scattered at all times.

There shall be places wherein buildings and structure are garrison-able.

Want to see constant explosion battlemines just like in real war.

How many units will each army going to have?

I like WW1 and WW2 but I also like seeing thousands of soldiers on battlefield.

There are still lots of era CA hasn't covered yet like Mongols, Renaissance, Korea, Great Northern War, etc...

Take note, the most requested Medieval as well

WW might work but on new game engine.

Check it out!

https://youtu.be/Vi6RZEoWfV4

Commisar#2307 · October 2020

Snipers would probably fit better as a tech that increases maintenance but adds attrition to enemy forces within range of your armies.

Yeah armies quickly stopped advancing in large groups after the early war and only did so when they thought they were safe (first day of the Somme being the outlier there). Forces quickly learnt to fan out and advance from cover to cover. German Stosstruppen pioneered what became the modern squad tactics and is part of why there's increased diversity of roles in the infantry regiments.

Jets weren't used in WW1 but take it meaning planes, their role on the battlefield is recon so yeah an ability to call them in to survey an area and give details would work. Also technologies would impact that, early on it wouldn't give details till it returns as they didn't have radios. Issue is more of how they work on the grand campaign.

Sieges and cities isn't really an issue in WW1. Garrisoning buildings would be a bad idea like it was in Empire. Reduces the units combat effectiveness and makes it extremely easy to wipe out with a few artillery strikes. Defences such as bunkers/forts would be different, but they would be more akin to the Forts in Empire with them being outside of the city (Verdun is a great example).

It made sense they didn't have naval combat in 3K, if I recall there's two river crossing battles where the ships played a big role. Question would be however if it would be fun enough for most players for it to make a reappearance, I'd be interested in seeing it as gun based naval combat feels better than the ramming of R2/A. Although again the main naval game of WW1 isn't ship battles but submarine warfare.

Also thinking about it the resource system from Troy would make sense for a WW1 game, instead of it being just raw resources it could be equipment such as planes, armoured cars and such. But again might be going too far off from what most expect/want from TW and more in to the realms of Pdox games.

Empire2please · January 2021

The issue with this discussion is that everyone is correct in a sense - to accurately portray WWI would be too much of a break from the established Total War mechanics - however, portraying the general time period (which I feel most die hard fans of Empire really want) is absolutely doable. A Total War Game set between 1914 and 1919 (when most treaties ending the war were signed) is too compact, but a game set from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s will allow a breadth of historical exploration through said time period and place fans of WWI right where they want to be for the end of the campaign.

My pitch for Empire 2: Total War
(I liked the name 'Imperial: Total War' but the 'Empire 2' title keeps the vide of other Total War sequels like Rome 2, Warhammer 2, Shogun 2)

I'm sure CA is already working on something like this - but here we go!

Campaign Time Period: Late 1865 to late 1914

Theaters:
- Europe - similar Empire and Napoleon (Europe, North Africa, some of Middle East like only territories that boarder the Mediterranean, and the Caucasus Region as displayed in Empire)
- North America and the Caribbean - Similar to Empire but slimmed down a bit (from southern Canada to southern Mexico/central Caribbean) no Central American or Northern South American territories
- Southern Africa - Territories encompassing the southern tip of Africa and its eastern coast opposite Madagascar
- South East Asia - some territories encompassing the southern Chinese coast, modern day Vietnam, the Islands of the Philippines, and maybe southern Japan
- The Theater of India and the expanse of the Middle East, as they are represented in Empire would not be included in this game to favor the theaters of Southern Africa and Eastern/Southeast Asia - the trade theaters would also not exist (as their inclusion simulates the creation of the large national trading companies of the 1700s)

Themes:
Primary-
- The Rise of Super Empires
= UK and Germany
- The Fall of Old Empires
= Spain, Russia, and Ottoman Empire
- Colonization of Africa and Asia
= through the inclusion of the theaters listed above
- Mass Industrialization
= Roads, Railroads, and Electricity for infrastructure improvements - building multiple factories and ports of the same type provide bonuses not just to the territory they reside but to other like buildings/industries as well (simulating the evolution of the accumulating economic power of individual corporations and industries)
Secondary-
- The increasing influence of the United States - holdover from Empire
- The increasing influence of Central Europe
- Industrialization of War
- Evolution Governments

Playable Factions:
- The United Kingdom
- The French Empire
- The Empire of Spain
- The German Empire
- The Kingdom of Italy
- The Austro-Hungarian Empire
- The Russian Empire
- The Ottoman Empire
- Japanese Colonies (like the British, French, and Spanish colony factions from Empire)
- United States of America

Technology Trees:
Military Industrialization:
- ex. Muskets to rifles and repeaters, wooden navies powered by sales to steal ships run on coal, cannons to artillery, machine guns at very end of campaign (probably no tanks and airplanes units - sorry)
Economic Industrialization:
- ex. electricity, industrialized farming, railroads, monopolies, mass industry (steal, coal, oil - you would not need to collect or micromanage these resources, but they contribute to your overall economy)
Societal Mobilization:
- ex. suffrage movement, worker's rights (unions), trade tariffs, modern energy, advanced economic systems, manifest destiny, nationalism, aircraft, self determination

Government Types:
- Absolute Monarchy/Imperial Dynasty
- Constitutional Monarchy
- Democracy/Republic
- Dictatorship
Managing the government would be similar to the management of family trees in Rome and Attila. Absolute Monarchies/Imperial dynasties and Constitutional Monarchies would be managing the royal families and their political confidants. For Democracy/Republic and Dictatorships Royal Families would be replaced by political parties (Populists and Centrists maybe). Dictatorships would only have one Political Party (call it Authoritarianists maybe). Government types would change when public unrest reaches untenable levels. Change could be attained through a forced referendum, or through revolt.

Prologue:
Introduction to real time battle mechanics - a battle or two set during the American Civil War (as the Union/USA)
Introduction to turn based/campaign map mechanics - Boxer Rebellion/colonization of Africa/Asia (as United Kingdom)
Test Your Skills - The Franco Prussian War (as Germany)

For those of us who want an actual sequel to Empire, not just the spiritual one we currently have in Napoleon (thought his game is good too!), yet who are worried about the mechanics of WWI changing Total War to much; this may be an acceptable compromise. Also for those who want to explore WWI era and play out battles using units similar to those used during WWI without worrying about correctly simulating trench warfare, once the campaign officially ends in 1914, what's stopping you from making your own World War?

Sorry for the spelling/grammar mistakes

jhockey5678 · April 2021

I think it could be possible to make it work but instead of having massive army stacks and leveling up cities the focus should be on leveling up and building trenches like settlements that would have massive garrisons to defend.
Cities would still generate revenue and could train specialty units such are artillery and late game storm troopers for Germany and tanks for Britain

Since people were close together on the front trenches would have to be controlled by two opposing factions at once and there would be some function in the trench called “going over the top” like in real ww1 where it would take a turn or two depending how big of an assault you want and then you can attack through no man’s land to attack, and the enemy defends from the trench or you meet in melee depending on if they also chose to go over the top. If your assault is successful you gain control of that trench area and then it gives you more options to attack from, for example you can now choose to assault from the side and from the front on a trench, where one army acts as a reinforcing army, depending on which army you decide to be the main attacking force.

Air planes would be tricky to do but what could be be done is airplanes could be auto resolved like naval combat used to, and bomber support could be similar to doom rockets in warhammer 2 where you can call it in at certain times if your faction has control of that airspace, of course this would be extremely late game.

I have a few other ideas and I’m not sure if this is too well thought out because I’m writing this in a car on vacation, but I think this could possibly work with some slight modifications to how total war works.

Welcome

Quick Links

Categories

Total War: World War 1

Comments