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

Empire 2: Total War

Empire2pleaseEmpire2please Registered Users Posts: 8
My pitch for Empire 2: Total War
(I liked the name 'Imperial: Total War' but the 'Empire 2' title keeps the vibe 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, workers’ 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

Comments

  • greendolphingreendolphin Registered Users Posts: 52
    edited January 3
    I agree to you about Imperial:Total War being a better title than Empire but for this time span it should be called Victoria/Victorian Total War.

    And i personally think Early Modern : Total War is the best option rather than imperial/empire. Provided that the campaign starts around 1650-1700 of course.

    I think a continuation of empire will eventually be released. Whether that be a major game like empire 2, napoleon 2 or victorian; or a saga/dlc material based on 30 years' war, 7 years' war or great northern war. My only hope is that if they make a saga game based on those wars, it better not be like the previous sagas. I didn't play Fall of Samurai but Thrones of Britannia and Troy was just awful.

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,639
    I do wish to see Empire 2 but this is not really a true follow up to Empire, it's a different time setting with different goals and world views. It's less expansion by arms and more influence and power play. Generally I'd say it's a lite and later take on the common suggestion of "Victoria TW". I would love to see a Victoria TW but I think we're still a while off from the set up for it.

    Strange to have North America and not South America, that was a more "global" area in the time frame. Quite a few wars and lots of nations trying to get their nations favoured for supply. Would expect that if CA ever covers the late 1800s it would include all the settled continents of the world as it was the point where the world became so connected.

    Germany didn't exist as a nation at the time you've suggested. At the start point it is a range of Germanic states. The unification of Germany was a big power change in and then outside of Europe during the games time frame. (Germany formed in 1871). Similar for the Empire of Italy, Italy didn't exist as a nation at the start of your time frame never mind as an empire.

    Also oil isn't really a thing to the economy at this time, biggest impact is the naval change to oil but that's too late to be anything, looking at 1910 in the real world and even then a lot of coal burning was still used.

    It goes too late if you want to skip trench warfare. WW1 style trench warfare was established before 1914. Nations set up from looking at the 1904 with the Russo-Japanese war where we see machineguns, bayonet charges and barbed wire. You also have going from ships of the line to Super Dreadnoughts in the naval game which makes the naval game a mess. It already struggles with the late ships in the 1800s in scale of use and combat range.
  • Empire2pleaseEmpire2please Registered Users Posts: 8

    I agree to you about Imperial:Total War being a better title than Empire but for this time span it should be called Victoria/Victorian Total War.

    And i personally think Early Modern : Total War is the best option rather than imperial/empire. Provided that the campaign starts around 1650-1700 of course.

    I think a continuation of empire will eventually be released. Whether that be a major game like empire 2, napoleon 2 or victorian; or a saga/dlc material based on 30 years' war, 7 years' war or great northern war. My only hope is that if they make a saga game based on those wars, it better not be like the previous sagas. I didn't play Fall of Samurai but Thrones of Britannia and Troy was just awful.

    I agree with you on the name - Empire 2: Total war does not have the best name to it and is kinda dull. Though if they want to bank on the getting the fan base of Empire excited on a sequel - the name could prove a powerful marketing tool.

    I have not played the saga games you reference, so I am unable to comment on them lol. If I had to guess, they are holding off on a direct sequel to Empire until the technology improves. Empire is an incredibly ambitious game in its scope (and it came out over a decade ago). For the sequel to appease, CA is probably planning to match Empire's ambition using the more powerful processing technology of the near future.
  • Empire2pleaseEmpire2please Registered Users Posts: 8
    Commisar said:

    I do wish to see Empire 2 but this is not really a true follow up to Empire, it's a different time setting with different goals and world views. It's less expansion by arms and more influence and power play. Generally I'd say it's a lite and later take on the common suggestion of "Victoria TW". I would love to see a Victoria TW but I think we're still a while off from the set up for it.

    Strange to have North America and not South America, that was a more "global" area in the time frame. Quite a few wars and lots of nations trying to get their nations favoured for supply. Would expect that if CA ever covers the late 1800s it would include all the settled continents of the world as it was the point where the world became so connected.

    Germany didn't exist as a nation at the time you've suggested. At the start point it is a range of Germanic states. The unification of Germany was a big power change in and then outside of Europe during the games time frame. (Germany formed in 1871). Similar for the Empire of Italy, Italy didn't exist as a nation at the start of your time frame never mind as an empire.

    Also oil isn't really a thing to the economy at this time, biggest impact is the naval change to oil but that's too late to be anything, looking at 1910 in the real world and even then a lot of coal burning was still used.

    It goes too late if you want to skip trench warfare. WW1 style trench warfare was established before 1914. Nations set up from looking at the 1904 with the Russo-Japanese war where we see machineguns, bayonet charges and barbed wire. You also have going from ships of the line to Super Dreadnoughts in the naval game which makes the naval game a mess. It already struggles with the late ships in the 1800s in scale of use and combat range.

    Thank you for the feedback! The points you raise are very important, so allow me to attempt to respond :)

    I disagree that the proposed idea is not a true follow up to Empire. Yes it is a different time setting, but the geo-political landscape of the mid 1800's to early 1900's was still dominated by imperialism/colonialism. If a major theme of Empire is the formation of continental and intercontinental empires, the proposed sequel would build on this theme by simulating how empires thrived on industrialization, continued their expansion, and the campaign would end around the beginning of the end for imperialism/colonialism as it was practiced by major nations at the time. World War 1 and its aftermath, I would argue, was the beginning of the end for the types of empires depicted in Empire. I think calling this proposed game 'Victoria: Total War' would work better if the campaign was focused primarily in Europe, like it is in Napoleon: Total War.

    I left out South America for a few reasons. One is that I propose the game focuses on colonialism in parts of Africa and South East Asia. I feel that these are parts of the world TW games have neglected. (If this game were to be released in the near future, I feel this approach is more probable and accessible). My other reasoning is that by the early 1800's (before the time period proposed for this game), many South American countries had already established independence and were no longer colonies (though the US and other European powers were vying for political influence over them. You could include South American factions as trade hubs (like those present in Napoleon), but I feel their territorial inclusion would make for a too taxing of a campaign map for many systems.

    Yes you are correct that Germany did not exist until 1871. A work around this would be for the Prussian faction to change its name after it gains control of the smaller German states East of the Rhine. Or this can be ignored, as it is only 6 years off (and Total War is a simulation that has taken liberties form time to time). I guess it comes down to how the game handles missions for factions, and or how much historical inaccuracy the fans are willing to accept. The Kingdom of Italy was founded in 1861 (4 years before the start of the proposed game), and it acquired colonies in Africa during the proposed time period.

    I use oil as an example of a resource/industry featured in the game. This would be handled similarly to how mines are handled in Empire. While it was not nearly as huge during the time period proposed as it was say during WWII, by the mid-late 1800's it was a very lucrative industry controlled by economically and politically powerful people. The player would attain this over time through research (they would have to work up to it). Don't worry, coal would be included too and would be incredibly influential when it comes to trade between different factions.

    I don't recommend the game skip trench warfare, but to accurately portray it as it was used in WWI would be difficult for the Total War formula to pull off. It would be a Military Research Technology, and players would be able to set it up in the pre-battle phase of the real time battles (similar to how trenches are set up in Empire, but less 18th century and more 19-20th century style). The disparity between ships of the line and steel forged dreadnaughts was a real issue for naval powers in the late 1800's, and could be simulated by this game.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,216
    I’d say a Victoria TW is a global concept. Not forgetting she was Empress of India, the sun never set on the British Empire and all that..
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,639

    Thank you for the feedback! The points you raise are very important, so allow me to attempt to respond :)

    I disagree that the proposed idea is not a true follow up to Empire. Yes it is a different time setting, but the geo-political landscape of the mid 1800's to early 1900's was still dominated by imperialism/colonialism. If a major theme of Empire is the formation of continental and intercontinental empires, the proposed sequel would build on this theme by simulating how empires thrived on industrialization, continued their expansion, and the campaign would end around the beginning of the end for imperialism/colonialism as it was practiced by major nations at the time. World War 1 and its aftermath, I would argue, was the beginning of the end for the types of empires depicted in Empire. I think calling this proposed game 'Victoria: Total War' would work better if the campaign was focused primarily in Europe, like it is in Napoleon: Total War.

    I left out South America for a few reasons. One is that I propose the game focuses on colonialism in parts of Africa and South East Asia. I feel that these are parts of the world TW games have neglected. (If this game were to be released in the near future, I feel this approach is more probable and accessible). My other reasoning is that by the early 1800's (before the time period proposed for this game), many South American countries had already established independence and were no longer colonies (though the US and other European powers were vying for political influence over them. You could include South American factions as trade hubs (like those present in Napoleon), but I feel their territorial inclusion would make for a too taxing of a campaign map for many systems.

    Yes you are correct that Germany did not exist until 1871. A work around this would be for the Prussian faction to change its name after it gains control of the smaller German states East of the Rhine. Or this can be ignored, as it is only 6 years off (and Total War is a simulation that has taken liberties form time to time). I guess it comes down to how the game handles missions for factions, and or how much historical inaccuracy the fans are willing to accept. The Kingdom of Italy was founded in 1861 (4 years before the start of the proposed game), and it acquired colonies in Africa during the proposed time period.

    I use oil as an example of a resource/industry featured in the game. This would be handled similarly to how mines are handled in Empire. While it was not nearly as huge during the time period proposed as it was say during WWII, by the mid-late 1800's it was a very lucrative industry controlled by economically and politically powerful people. The player would attain this over time through research (they would have to work up to it). Don't worry, coal would be included too and would be incredibly influential when it comes to trade between different factions.

    I don't recommend the game skip trench warfare, but to accurately portray it as it was used in WWI would be difficult for the Total War formula to pull off. It would be a Military Research Technology, and players would be able to set it up in the pre-battle phase of the real time battles (similar to how trenches are set up in Empire, but less 18th century and more 19-20th century style). The disparity between ships of the line and steel forged dreadnaughts was a real issue for naval powers in the late 1800's, and could be simulated by this game.

    No problem, happy to discuss it and hopefully that's why we are all here! :)

    No it wouldn't. Napoleon total war focused on continental Europe as that's where the majority of the conflict of the Napoleonic wars was. Victorias reign is what you describe, a global expansion and industrialisation. Britain was distant from the continent and wasn't actively involved with boots on the ground outside of the Crimean war so not fitting to name it after the British Queen and Empress if that's your focus. Bismarck would be a better name for a game focusing on just Europe during the later 1800s.

    But that's why South America would be more fitting, there was more activity there than North America. Can cover them with the trade hubs and have more political interaction with South America and a DLC campaign covering the US civil war.

    Yeah that's how factions/nations have been working for the last few games (3K & ToB) that your nation name upgrades as you expand and hit criteria. If you skip over key moments such as the formation of Germany/Italy it would annoy a lot of people and be a big rip for a lot of people. Especially if you have a lot of focus on Africa which then will trigger a lot of people.

    Just issue is oils not of much note during the time frame and isn't a resource that's worth focusing on compared to others.

    It would have to skip it, TW can't cover trench warfare and especially when the majority of the game is set before then. By the time the Dreadnoughts and super-Dreadnoughts came out ships of the line had long phased out. Their launch made all other warships obsolete which happens repeatedly. Been long drawn out discussions previously but the naval game changes multiple times through this and means repeatedly changing how the game handles both the fleets on campaign and the entire battles.
  • Empire2pleaseEmpire2please Registered Users Posts: 8
    Commisar -

    I think if this game focused on Europe the way Napoleon did, then it could be called it Victoria or Bismarck. But I think that name is too European centric - especially with the American and Japanese factions included (maybe include a China DLC? As well as a South American one?).

    Yes there was much more geopolitical and domestic turbulence in South America during this time, however none of those states were able to achieve a global power status (such as the US and Japan).

    I think the unification of Italy could be a prologue or separate campaign mission. Though its formation predates the starting time of the Grand Campaign mode. That is unless the starting date for the Grand Campaign is pushed back to 1860. This would also allow players who choose the American faction to play through a light version of the US Civil War.

    To your point on oil, it would be one of several resources available to be traded and would be affected by research. And by no means the most important one, but I will continue to advocate that it was an important enough resource during this time to be included in this game.

    The game does not have to cover trench warfare in much detail, and can be used as a defensive tech researched later in the game to fortify a position prior to starting a battle. Though trenches were used prior to WWI in the field (The late American Civil War saw the use of trenches).
  • greendolphingreendolphin Registered Users Posts: 52
    I do not understand why the 'victorian' title is perceived as euro-centric.

    The reason why it was called victorian was because during Queen Victoria's reign (1837-1901) the British Empire was at its peak both in terms of power and civilisational advancement. Its effects was worldwide. And nearly half of the globe was British soil.

    Put whichever parts of the world you want to the campaign maps, the British will be there, and they'll be the key player in every single region. That is why 'Victorian' is far from being euro-centric, but rather a global title.


  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,639

    Commisar -

    I think if this game focused on Europe the way Napoleon did, then it could be called it Victoria or Bismarck. But I think that name is too European centric - especially with the American and Japanese factions included (maybe include a China DLC? As well as a South American one?).

    Yes there was much more geopolitical and domestic turbulence in South America during this time, however none of those states were able to achieve a global power status (such as the US and Japan).

    I think the unification of Italy could be a prologue or separate campaign mission. Though its formation predates the starting time of the Grand Campaign mode. That is unless the starting date for the Grand Campaign is pushed back to 1860. This would also allow players who choose the American faction to play through a light version of the US Civil War.

    To your point on oil, it would be one of several resources available to be traded and would be affected by research. And by no means the most important one, but I will continue to advocate that it was an important enough resource during this time to be included in this game.

    The game does not have to cover trench warfare in much detail, and can be used as a defensive tech researched later in the game to fortify a position prior to starting a battle. Though trenches were used prior to WWI in the field (The late American Civil War saw the use of trenches).

    The "Empire" doesn't truely fit the game either, nor "Imperial". Victoria was the Empress of the largest global empire during the time period, who became Empress of India as well. It's going to end up being a European heavy game as they are the main forces and others are emulating them.

    US didn't really in the time frame. Only thing they do on the global scale is the war with Spain towards the end of the games time frame. Interaction with more of the map and other nations would seem a better investment. Yeah Japan again at the end of the time frame did became a larger player with their invasion of continental Asia and then the war with Russia, this is again right at the end of the time frame.

    As far as I can tell from a google is Oils role is to substitute for whale oils, which are still in high demand along with other elements of their bodies.

    Yeah the trenches in the US civil war were quite different without the barbed wire and machineguns. TW really wont do well trying to simulate both the old school mass line and then convert suddenly to trenches. Due to how narrow trenches are a large unit would be really awkward to place in it.
  • WhiskeySykesWhiskeySykes Registered Users Posts: 18
    Empire 2 should be the entire globe, and the focus of the game should be discovery and ship of the line warfare.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,639

    Empire 2 should be the entire globe, and the focus of the game should be discovery and ship of the line warfare.

    Period wasn't covering all the world though and had very little to no interaction with large parts of it. Trade nodes fit these areas at the most.
Sign In or Register to comment.