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

Why a World War I themed total war?

GrudgeNLGrudgeNL Senior MemberPosts: 7,148Registered Users, Cakes!
edited December 2015 in Total War General Chat
World War I, also known as the Great War meant to end all wars, is a conflict of Total War began on July 28th 1914 and lasted until November 11 1918.

During this war the incredible rate at which technology and tactics involved defined the future of warfare. Patriotism and culture resulted in traditional warfare where colored uniforms and line infantry were present in abundance.

The war quickly turned into a conflict where new technology was constantly used to overcome the other. On the western front, trenches were dug for defensive purposes. Trenches themselves brought stalemates as both sides unable to move.

Though the trenches are considered to be the bane of the stalemate, it also allowed military technology to once again make a leap, where new deadly weaponsmade their entrance on the battlefield.



Why World War I?

A better question would be, why not? The common opinion amongst people against the idea, usually talk about 'guns' and 'trenches'. But truly, these are not going to cause the most trouble. In fact, there are other elements that may require changes for it to work. Nevertheless, the challenge to overcome these issues is by thinking outside the box.

World War I was a global conflict of empires, where politics, propaganda, conscripting and technology had an equal role. Battles, fought on open fields, trenches, hills, mountains, on the sea and in the air. It saw the use of railways to contribute to the war, both by transporting a massive mobilisation, but also saw the railway guns. From traditional warfare, to the use of trenches, sniper rifles, flame throwers and tanks.

The question could be, will you step in the shoes of the generals and employ more effective tactics to overcome the Stalemate at the cost of the speed at which military technology is researched? Or will you dare to make similar decisions at the risk of running into a stalemate?



Total War: The Great War

Events in the game would be taking place from 1900 -1930. 12 turns per year.

Follow other nations as many reform and mobilize in the early 20th century. Tension rises across Europe and the question is, what will trigger the war? Who will set of a chain of events that will cost the lives of millions? Delaying is possible but the war inevitable. The player should prepare their nation for the worst on all threatres of war. Because Europe won't be the only one.



---Work in progress---



Factions

Units

Agents

Politics & Diplomacy

Propaganda

Trenches

Technology
Grudge's Mods
Total War: Karling - Coming soon...-ish
Grudge's Total War: Attila - Sassanid UI skin here on the Steam Workshop
Post edited by GrudgeNL on
«13456749

Comments

  • AndaAnda Senior Member Posts: 209Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    Hey Grudge

    First of all, good OP that deserves a serious response.

    Now, let me start by saying that i'm one of those many people who, for one reason or another can't imagine a TW:WWI game that works. Not because I hate guns og tanks, and not because WWI isn't a very interesting conflict. It is!

    I came to think about how many WWI games that are actally out there and I can only think of two in recent time. One is sort of a mod I believe, based on the Blitzkrieg RTS series, cant' remeber the name but i'm sure very few people ever heard of it let alone played it. The second one is Victoria (I and II) wich is a large scale geopolitics simulation before anything else - very niche indeed. Only two. Why is that?

    Although i have read several book on WWI I certainly don't consider myself to be an expert, but here are my reasons for not wanting a WWI game:

    Prior to WWI, military technology had by far outpaced the strategic and tactical doktrines of the era, wich resulted in a static war of atrition that, arguably ended in a stalemate. Germany's defeat resulted from politics rather than defeats on the battlefield. With the large scale application of machineguns, the napoleonic tactis became suicidal with losses in the tenths of thousands in a single offensive, resulting in a defesive war where opponents resorted to lob insane amounts of artillery shells at each others trenches for months, basically years. Maybe one side would gain a few thousand yeards, only to lose them the very next day.

    The all important thing to keep in mind here gamewise, is that the military action, monotenous and defensive as is was, did not achieve anything of strategic importance from 1914-1918. It was utterly pointless. I dont' want to play a game where everything I do is more or less pointless and where there are no real achievents to be made.

    Lobbing shells at an enemy threch for an hour and then marching my infantry across a wide field only to wach them get
    slaughtered without achieving anything of importance for a hundred turns would be a realistic representation of the conflict. It just doesn't make for a very interesting game in my opinion, i'm sorry to say.

    With regards to naval warfare, there was only one battle of significance, the battle of Jutland in which the losses and material destruction on both sides were so enormous that no one really wanted to try that again.

    Could CA make a WWI game? Sure they could, tanks, planes and all, but if they were to do it realistically it would play out as described above. Maybe they could make a game about the eastern front, where there were some mobile warfare, but Germany basically steamrolled Russia into submission here, so that would be a pretty one sided game.
  • Half_Life_ExpertHalf_Life_Expert Senior Member Oak Park, CA , USAPosts: 4,682Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    I completely agree, however there is one thing i am skepitcal of.

    Trench Warfare

    i know the whole war was not the stalemate in the trenches, but that is the icon of the Great war and would have to be central.

    i have no problem playing commanders on the western front, the problem is making it a playable game. As Anda said, sending men over the top to get slaughtered is not my idea of a fun game. In fact, i hate charging fortified positions in any strategy game.

    but CA is an excellent developer and im sure they can come up with a way for Trench Warfare to work. Perhaps we could make use of the fact that we in the 21st century are fully aware of how arrogant some of the generals were and we could push for development of tanks much earlier in the war in our campaigns than actual history. Im reading Actung Panzer! now and Guderian spends alot of time talking about the vast mistakes of trench warfare. Basically he pointed the finger at inferor tactics, weapons, and inability to change them for a while.

    For WW1 to work in a TW game, we HAVE to be smarter than the actual commanders. If we do that, WWI will make a wonderful TW setting.
    "we have officially entered into pre-whinning about our games."- Cogre

    I will always respect differing opinions on here, so long as they are presented maturely and in a civil manner

    "No Battleplan ever survives contact with the enemy"- Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder

    The WWI Thread: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/30914/why-a-world-war-i-themed-total-war/p1

    I'm skipping TW: Warhammer
  • GrudgeNLGrudgeNL Senior Member Posts: 7,148Registered Users, Cakes!
    edited January 2012
    Anda wrote: »

    1.The all important thing to keep in mind here gamewise, is that the military action, monotenous and defensive as is was, did not achieve anything of strategic importance from 1914-1918. It was utterly pointless.

    2.I dont' want to play a game where everything I do is more or less pointless and where there are no real achievents to be made.

    3.Lobbing shells at an enemy threch for an hour and then marching my infantry across a wide field only to wach them get
    slaughtered without achieving anything of importance for a hundred turns would be a realistic representation of the conflict. It just doesn't make for a very interesting game in my opinion, i'm sorry to say.

    4.With regards to naval warfare, there was only one battle of significance, the battle of Jutland in which the losses and material destruction on both sides were so enormous that no one really wanted to try that again.

    5 Could CA make a WWI game? Sure they could, tanks, planes and all, but if they were to do it realistically it would play out as described above. Maybe they could make a game about the eastern front, where there were some mobile warfare, but Germany basically steamrolled Russia into submission here, so that would be a pretty one sided game.


    Thanks for the polite comment and I see you got a lot of good points. However, I'd like to respond to a couple of them. I numbered them and aswer them below.

    1. As far as I can say, most wars didn't really achieve anything of importance. But that's just my opinion.

    2. The true achievement in a WW1 TW game, would be the same as Empire: TW. Empire TW didn't really have a goal besides expanding. For example, I conquered all of Europe, India and America while playing as Prussia.

    3. Let's get one thing out of the way. One has to draw a line between what truely happened and what happens in games. yes it's true trench warfare was mostly present in WW1, but let me remind you that sieges during Medieval times also took days if not Months. With that being said, Medieval 2 total war also has short siege battles, yet it does not portray how long the sieges took. This can also be done with Trench warfare. Think of a creative aliternative without letting players fighting over the same inches everytime again.

    Plus, this gives the player also the ability to avoid entire trench battles and think of a tactic of their own. In Empire TW, playing as India, I steamrolled Russia with War elephants. Never happened, yet it worked.

    4.Then again, there were only a few naval battles during the Sengoku Era that were significant. Yet CA made naval battles a big part of Total War Shogun 2.

    5. TW games always take a historical war, and let the player do whatever they want. TW were never really scripted, but gave the player a map with the countries as they were in that specific era. From that moment, the game isn't historical accurate anymore.

    Example: At the start of TW: shogun 2, there is 15 % chance that at the end of the first turn, a Great Clan will be destroyed. This is already completely random, as there are 9 great clans ( 9 right?).
    With this, WW1 shouldn't be much of a problem.

    Overall: People shouldn't be watching to a specific parts of the War. In fact, should look at the overall of the war. Usually siege battles and naval battles were that spectacular. Games however, can draw them the way they want.

    It's not about how it was or how significant something is, it's how interesting it would be to add as a gameplay possiblity.

    as I said, Naval battles were never interesting in the sengoku era. Would that stop CA from making shogun 2 ? Sieges in the Medieval era took months. Would that stop CA from making medieval 2?

    No. It's all about how they change it to fit a TW game.


    I completely agree, however there is one thing i am skepitcal of.

    Trench Warfare

    i know the whole war was not the stalemate in the trenches, but that is the icon of the Great war and would have to be central.

    Depends. The Generals from that time forces the soldiers to go into trenches. You don't need to ;)

    Just like Empire TW. Generals in that time liked to use an army with both line infantry, cavalry and artillery. Yet I often use war elephants and steamroll that stuff.

    Other words: Trenches should be a possibility and should never be forced in the game, regardless the number of times it being used in WW1.







    Anyway, it's good that some people want to discuss this on a normal way. So thanks anda and half Life expert.
    Grudge's Mods
    Total War: Karling - Coming soon...-ish
    Grudge's Total War: Attila - Sassanid UI skin here on the Steam Workshop
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 15,848Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    The term Total War with respect to this franchise doesn't have much to do with the dictionary definition. So just because the actual concept of "total war" (contrast with the "TW" series) are the games' namesake doesn't mean there's a connection.

    I'm all fine for a WW1 game, but that would require a lot of changes, and a very radical one, and I mean fundamental changes to how TW games are played out. Not just tactical (changes to how units fight move, interface, etc.) but strategic (ultimate game objectives). TW hasn't changed radically in either; since the first shogun to the second, there have been formations of infantry, cavalry, the odd artillery, and archers exchanging fire. Empire came along and replaced archers with firearm infantry. With Fall of the Samurai, the weapons have become more modern, but the overall tactics have remained unchanged.

    We have an interesting conundrum where just like real-life strategists during WW1, we can't fathom how to fight a new kind of warfare that that 1914 heralded. You can't select a unit of 150 riflemen and tell them to assemble in a specific rectangular formation on a battlefield near some machine guns. Because the machines will mow them down. Like what happened in real life. Eventually tanks provided the spearhead that allowed breaking through trench defenses possible, but infantry tactics remained relatively primitive and obsolete. The interbellum period allowed some maturity to develop and WW2 featured much more emphasis on movement. Blitzkrieg revolved entirely around outmaneuvering the enemy.

    As to a "good" TW game with a WW1 theme, it would only fit into that definition if it was good in its execution, not in concept.

    Themes have a way of defining how the game is played out, and as such, in one extent or another limits the amount of "freeplay". Rome's theme revolved around the Hellenic period, so a lot of units had the phalanx feature. Therefore, a lot of the game experience will involve a lot of interaction with that type of unit, and the respective tactics needed to counter them. You can't just ignore the fact that all the Greek-derived factions have some sort of heavy phalanx infantry and act like they don't exist. You have to play in that style, since they are a crucial part of a unit roster, or you adapt to them accordingly. Either way, you play into that style, because that's the only way to win. Themes then, have a way of limiting the amount of "freeplay" experience by virtue of being a theme.

    The biggest issue with a particular theme, besides disliking it, is whether it's designed properly. There's obviously no perfect theme that has a theme yet does not limit player experience, there's always a degree of compromise. A theme that forces a player to interact with the game features in a certain way will be boring at best, and infuriating at worst. World War One didn't have just one theme, it featured, on top of a conflict between countries, a conflict of how warfare was fought. 1914 had antiquated tactics butting heads with modern weapons, 1918 there were some developments to both. 1914 didn't start with tanks and aircraft, they came about later on. So if we're going to make a "good" WW1 theme that stays faithful to technological development it would have to literally make players suffer through obsolete tactics against modern weapons, then develop tactics and technology to overcome them.

    This is entirely different from any TW game, where the only real development were structures and units- units that remain relatively unchanged in concept, and merely better, more powerful and some more abilities. The Spartan Hoplite or Urban Cohort are nothing more than a severely beefed up Hoplite Militia or Roman Hastati- other than that were were essentially no changes to how you used these units. It was the stats and additional abilities that made you choose to have a Spartan Hoplite unit engage that Urban Cohort, rather than your tenth-rate Militia, because that was what they were- better versions of the units you start with. WW1 did not have sides with primitive fighters and bombers that progressively became better later on- they had balloons and the odd biplane for observation. Then they started arming pilots. Then they started designing planes that mounted guns, then bombs. Then you have zeppelins. Then you started getting dedicated anti-aircraft units with weapons. They practically started with nothing that resembled an air force to a something that was eventually called as such.

    Squad tactics would mean the end of the formations and pitched battles we all know of TW games. This would also mean the play style would become more similar to Relic's Company of Heroes, a WW2 themed game, where things were scaled down. But scale and size are the most notable of TW's hallmarks. The largest squad in CoH was seven people. The smallest unit in Shogun2 is around 15 for the Hero units. Even if CA were to decide to up the unit max to 40 per battle, that means you don't command an army anymore, you command what amounts to a regiment-sized force or less. Would this work? That depends on what CA makes. Again, it is not the fact that squad-based tactics that will be the problem (for most players), it's whether they're designed well enough to be efficient, enjoyable, yet sufficiently represent the theme portrayed.

    One big limitation to the TW series was scale. Again, not because of the fact that historical themes were large, but that a larger theme, and thus larger scale, necessitated a LOT of things to work on. And a lot of things in a game system means a exponentially larger amount of work to ensure it's done properly. This is known as that phase in game development as testing. And when you don't test things properly, you get things like bugs and exploits. And if the game is large, and not a lot of time spent on testing, you get games like Skyrim- it's touted as large in scale, so what did I find in that game? A truckload of bugs, and a relative lacklustre in detail. This is how game developers tend to compromise, they cut corners to make such large scales feasible. Which is not bad, it's just the logical and natural consequence of taking on a project of immense size under a certain deadline and budget, and sacrificing what is deemed unnecessary. You don't NEED a bajillion different voices for each character with a million different lines. Nor do you NEED hundreds of unique sound tracks for different situations. But what you get are about a dozen voices for all the characters, recycled lines with lack of situational tone, and hearing the same music over and over again. The reality is that Bethesda chose scale and naturally Skyrim was lacking in detail, whilst CA chose more depth for Shogun2 and got to develop some more on detail, and critics ragged on CA for not making the theme bigger. The nature of games industry require developers to choose. Because they don't make games for fun, they make them to get money to survive.

    In the end, a WW1 themed Total War game seems to send the message of huge scale and radical changes to players. Considering Empire, I'd say their fears are pretty warranted. IMO CA's not very good at facing such big changes, considering the amount of experience they have and the themes they choose to portray.

    I'm all for a WW1 theme, but it will require a lot of work to make the product a good enough game to enjoy. With the increase in game complexity it's going to be an immense challenge for a company like CA. They'd have to include a radical new theme, with radical new ways to play the game. You can't just slap on the same game mechanics to a new theme like WW1. Not only is that incompatible, it's also boring if you've played most of the TW titles. Which is probably why I don't want CA delving into WW1 just yet.

    So I don't really have a "hate" on a WW1 theme. I just oppose it on grounds of my knowledge on game mechanics, the complexity of game development, and the logical consequences of making certain choices in creating games and trends regarding game developers. I prefer if CA spent more time on old turf than rushing off into the wild unknown. A lot of people AFAIK enjoy the historical themes like Rome, so they can just revisit it with some updated features. Sometimes you grow because you do the same things with incremental changes of novelty. Making an entirely new type of game out of nowhere for sake of the theme could actually be a death-knell. Firefly's Stronghold series come to mind.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • SmokeScreenSmokeScreen Senior Member Posts: 2,429Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    Anda wrote: »
    Lobbing shells at an enemy threch for an hour and then marching my infantry across a wide field only to wach them get
    slaughtered without achieving anything of importance for a hundred turns would be a realistic representation of the conflict. It just doesn't make for a very interesting game in my opinion, i'm sorry to say.

    erm...and as if medieval sieges were just all action and no waiting out the enemy for weeks/months/years. A lot of the time sieges involved little to no fighting, just waiting and suffering in disease and hunger...but somehow CA made that seem fun. So how hard could it be to make trench warfare fun...not that hard I imagine.
    "I just traded Finland's military to Kenya for 50 lions"

    The awesome World War 1 Thread
  • Half_Life_ExpertHalf_Life_Expert Senior Member Oak Park, CA , USAPosts: 4,682Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    good point, smokescreen

    the only problem is that trench warfare doesnt allow for much opportunity to attack the enemy on multiple sides, but your reasoning is sound

    Read some more of Guderian's Actung Panzer! today, from what i gather, the introduction of tanks should have ended the war sooner than it did, but the problems were many:

    Generally tanks were not used on mass until later in the war when there were sufficent numbers, I agree with Guderian that the allies should have waited until they had sufficent numbers for a massive armored assault as the introduction of the tank on the battlefield. In TW we could order the delay of tanks in combat until there were sufficent numbers of them if we want to.

    Breakdowns were also a big problem that not much could be done about. In a TW setting, those could be phased out with a tech tree piece.

    Many Generals were highly skeptical of tanks for a number of reasons: breakdowns, slow speed, vulerability to artillery, and possibly the biggest reason, un willingness the advance from the old ways of fighting. This opinion problem would not be an issue in TW because we know that tanks are the right way to go to end the stalemate.
    "we have officially entered into pre-whinning about our games."- Cogre

    I will always respect differing opinions on here, so long as they are presented maturely and in a civil manner

    "No Battleplan ever survives contact with the enemy"- Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder

    The WWI Thread: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/30914/why-a-world-war-i-themed-total-war/p1

    I'm skipping TW: Warhammer
  • Hidden GunmanHidden Gunman Moderator Posts: 4,606Moderators
    edited January 2012
    People overlook the fact that in the Middle East in WW1 the Ottoman Empire was halted and eventually driven out of the eastern mediteranean by the largest cavalry force of all time, consisting of 34,000 cavalry and mounted infantry, with integral artillery, machine gun, air and transport units, and that number is not including the sizeable but essentially peripheral forces of the Arab regular and guerilla formations operating on the eastern flank.

    People also overlook the fact that smaller campaigns of manuevre had been conducted throughout various colonial territories, both in Africa and the Pacific/Indian Ocean areas.

    The popular fixation with the predominantly western front perspective is a very limiting viewpoint. The really interesting aspects of WW1 were well away from Europe, although the sheer grind and immensity of the european conflict also hide many of the salient points about it, as well...the fact that the British had linked their economic/technological/military capacities, and developed largely successful doctrines on the use of combined arms, as well as developing a very effective infantry force equipped far earlier with what were at the time advanced weaponry, such as rifle grenades, light man-portable machine guns and light mortars, introduced minor tactics battle schools as an essential component of their continued infantry training (for veteran units and troops), etc etc.

    People also overlook that once the less able commanders on the allied side of the western front were sidestepped, and the deadlock of the trenches was eventually broken, the war was over in a matter of months, and in fact could have finished several months earlier if a more aggressive approach had been taken, capitalising on the smashing of two german field armies at the battle of Amiens.

    In the March-April 1918 battles, Haig fought a brilliant war of manuevre, another factor that people overlook. He came into his own once he was out of the trenches.

    No, WW1 TW has great possibilities.
    Yes, it's me.

    Gungho |Takeda| Yamagato Masakage

    You have spoken with clarity of thought and rhetorical flourish...you have surely earned the favour of the mods.

    If you didn't, click here...
  • GrudgeNLGrudgeNL Senior Member Posts: 7,148Registered Users, Cakes!
    edited January 2012
    The biggest reason why people don't want WW1 as a TW game is rather simple, a reason I forgot to include.

    Like many visions people have, such as the Samurai and the Honour Code, these people have only a certain perspective of something. A very limited one. Like Hidden Gunman said, people overlook things. They look at the basics and keep it with the basics.

    As SmokeScreen added, The true medieval times are different than shown in medieval 2. Sieges were boring, lots of waiting. Shogun 2 doesn't protray The Sengoku era perfectly. Thousands of samurai climbing walls while they had ladders. It's because CA made changes in order to make the game fun to play.

    If CA can make the Medieval Era and the Sengoku Era into a fun video game, why shouldn't CA be able to make WW1 a fun part to explore ? The fact that a lot of people barely know anything about the war should be reason enough to be considered a future TW game.

    And changes. Yes, CA has to make a lot of changes. They have to make a lot of changes for every TW game. But the end result is so much better than just making a game like a small side-grade with no new challenges.

    if CA managed to Make medieval 2 Total War fun without making it look bad, then why not WW1 ? Indeed. Why not.
    Grudge's Mods
    Total War: Karling - Coming soon...-ish
    Grudge's Total War: Attila - Sassanid UI skin here on the Steam Workshop
  • Half_Life_ExpertHalf_Life_Expert Senior Member Oak Park, CA , USAPosts: 4,682Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    daelin4 wrote: »
    In the end, a WW1 themed Total War game seems to send the message of huge scale and radical changes to players. Considering Empire, I'd say their fears are pretty warranted. IMO CA's not very good at facing such big changes, considering the amount of experience they have and the themes they choose to portray.

    I think the reason why Fall of the Samurai was made was partially for the puropse of introucing radical changes from the post Napoleon 1800s without the risk of a full scale game. Rather introducing them in a smaller arena that is both familiar and easier to work with. I truely belive that CA learned from thier mistakes of Empire. This is the chief reason why I belive a Victorian TW is next. Sucess of FotS would allow CA to go bigger with Gatling Guns, Ironclads, Railroads, and all the military creations of the 19th century.
    "we have officially entered into pre-whinning about our games."- Cogre

    I will always respect differing opinions on here, so long as they are presented maturely and in a civil manner

    "No Battleplan ever survives contact with the enemy"- Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder

    The WWI Thread: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/30914/why-a-world-war-i-themed-total-war/p1

    I'm skipping TW: Warhammer
  • SmokeScreenSmokeScreen Senior Member Posts: 2,429Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    I'm really hoping for a WW1 TW game, and I'm 100% sure that it's going to be the best 20th century war game ever. But I want a Victorian era game first :)
    "I just traded Finland's military to Kenya for 50 lions"

    The awesome World War 1 Thread
  • Half_Life_ExpertHalf_Life_Expert Senior Member Oak Park, CA , USAPosts: 4,682Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    Agreed smokescreen. As a sidenote.

    I am typing this on my dads new kindle fire!
    "we have officially entered into pre-whinning about our games."- Cogre

    I will always respect differing opinions on here, so long as they are presented maturely and in a civil manner

    "No Battleplan ever survives contact with the enemy"- Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder

    The WWI Thread: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/30914/why-a-world-war-i-themed-total-war/p1

    I'm skipping TW: Warhammer
  • CorpiusCorpius Moderator Posts: 885Registered Users, Moderators
    edited January 2012

    The popular fixation with the predominantly western front perspective is a very limiting viewpoint. The really interesting aspects of WW1 were well away from Europe, although the sheer grind and immensity of the european conflict also hide many of the salient points about it, as well...the fact that the British had linked their economic/technological/military capacities, and developed largely successful doctrines on the use of combined arms, as well as developing a very effective infantry force equipped far earlier with what were at the time advanced weaponry, such as rifle grenades, light man-portable machine guns and light mortars, introduced minor tactics battle schools as an essential component of their continued infantry training (for veteran units and troops), etc etc.

    It's not "popular fixation" with the Western Front. In fact, anyone arguing the Western Front was not of the supreme (and foremost) importance for the outcome of the First World War is making a deeply, deeply flawed argument. Albeit it in the good company of men like Liddell Hart. The war would have to be won (and was) on the Western Front.

    Which also brings me to the main problems I see with regards to WW I and TW. When you try to do one, you lose the other. It will either not be anything like WW I, Grudge even acknolewdged this in one of his posts stating trechwarfare as being 'optional', or you have to bend the TW formula beyond recognition. In one of the interviews Kieran Brigden ( former CA now SEGA) gave, he stated some of the fundamentals of TW games, one of them being the requirement of a multi-polar world. WW I is for all intents and purposes a bipolar environment: You can't have France breaking the alliance in 1915 and turning on Britian, like I said, very TW-esque, very un-WW I.

    Not to mention, and this is what really always gets overlooked, the nature of the conflict. The absolute predominance of artillery on the battlefield (responsible for70% of all casualties against 0,5% for the bayonet). Neither gas, (light)machineguns, tanks, aircraft or flamethrowers were war winning weapons by themselves. And the biggest problem WW I commanders faced will be hard to represent in a TW game, as it was a problem of communication. This above all prevented the exploitation of a breakthrough. We however, could prepare an assault, gather our forces, win a few battles back to back and achieve that breakthrough in 10 turns so to speak. Or land a massive chunk of our forces on the Balkans and march straight on Berlin. Liberties that perfectly fit a TW game, but were not viable options open to WW I commanders.

    The net result would either be a game that's fun to play with the gaming industry's standard gameplay>>>realism, but applying this to a WW I setting would mean changing to such an extreme extent the very essence of what the First World War was to the point where it becomes downright ridiculous to speak of it as a "World War I" Total War game. (Contrary to the liberties CA permitted themselves with Rome, Medieval, Shogun, ETW etc.)

    The way you could perhaps overcome this problem, is not to theme it WW I, but a Fin de Sciecle Total War, starting around 1900 so the player can take it onwards from there and have France ally with Gemany against the British if the player so pleases, comparable to Poland whiping Prussia of the map in ETW. That way you keep most if not all geopolitical options open. As for me, the main objections lie with the setting (WW I) as opposed to the era (and all technological developments that came with it).
    Total War Forums' Rules

    "One loves one's fellow-man so much more when one is bent on killing him."
    - Captain Julian Henry Francis Grenfell, November 1914

    Anything I say can and will be used against me.
  • RumpullpusRumpullpus Senior Member Posts: 1,216Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    WW1 is just too modern even IF CA figured out a way to do it without ruining it historically, CA doesnt exactly have the greatest reputation in creating somthing completely new and getting it to look and work right the first time (cough,ETW.cough).
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 15,848Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    Total War games tend to not be very historical; I'm sure most of you all know that. So that means at best a WW1-themed TW game would merely be set around that time frame with respective units. Left to the player, the possibility of replaying that type of warfare is pretty small- after all, in Shogun2 you can simply spam Ashigaru units and not train any samurai at all, negating the type of warfare one would expect out of a game based on Japanese warfare, where the samurai was premiere.

    And let's not mention the fact that liberties are taken with reality when CA makes their games. Wardogs, Flaming Pigs, Elephant artillery, a bajillion variants of line infantry, and Katana Samurai, and Warrior Nuns. TW games are merely set in certain time periods, and with the units give the appropriate atmosphere. Other than that the formula of Total War has remained relatively unchanged, one that was pre-WW1. So naturally, a WW1 themed game would be a radical departure of how CA designed their games. Which is good, because currently the unchanged mechanic is getting a bit boring.

    And what Hidden Gunman has mentioned also actually makes it more complicated- the popular perception of WW1 being trench warfare conflicts with reality that different tactics were done in other theatres. If CA does not include such things, then they reinforce the popular perception at the chagrin of realists (re Katana Samurai) for sake of gameplay, which I would call the "easy" route since it discards a lot of good additional features, but would vastly increase the work needed to make the game less bug-infested and glitches.

    I mean, who really uses Yari Samurai for reasons other than historical?

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • SmokeScreenSmokeScreen Senior Member Posts: 2,429Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    @Corpius

    There was just as much a "Great War" on the Eastern front as there was on the Western, some 5 million Russians died of which 2 million was military deaths.

    I think having Allies and Enemies that remain Allies or Enemies through out the game would be kind of refreshing, especially when taking to account the really weird AI decisions regarding politics and diplomacy. So I don't see it as a bad thing that in a hypothetical WW1 TW game the French could not attack Britain. I think smaller nations (or nations less significant to the conflict) could be the once that are "free" to choose who they will be fighting for. For instance Mexico, Japan, China, Greece and White/Red Russia (when the scripted revolution event kicks in) get to choose which side they will be on. This would also give CA a chance to really make allies count for once, both in combat and in politics.

    I think trench warfare as being optional in a WW1 game is a bad idea. A more working resolution would be limiting trench warfare. How would that be done you may ask? Well each country has only a specific amount of kilometers of trench that they can dig, this would mean that the west front would be literally be trenches from the sea to Switzerland. But on the East front the same could not be done because the front is on a much larger area. This would mean that using horses, trucks, tanks and more mobile tactics in general would be the main thing to do to out maneuver the enemy. Another significant factor that would limit trench warfare would be terrain, bad terrain = no trenches.

    Also I think War in the African jungles could be very fun, with units ranging from African tribal spear units to mercenary Boers.
    "I just traded Finland's military to Kenya for 50 lions"

    The awesome World War 1 Thread
  • Brenticus1Brenticus1 Senior Member Posts: 643Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    I guess that commanders could "build a trench system" as they would build a fort or a watchtower, which essentially changes the terrain for the battle map in that area. Then you could enhance the the trench network so long as you stay in that location, and it becomes deteriorated if there is no units stationed there, and stuff like that. Also have it so that you the AI factions follow more in the course of actual history, like that the US, and Canada will probably not attack each other (unless one was the human player and decides that the climate in virgina is better than that in washington), and the brits and germans would end up at war.

    PS: yes, imo canada should be a separated from GB.
    The more you kill, the less the lag.
  • joegouvinjoegouvin Senior Member Posts: 162Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    I think that a WW1 Total War would be one of the most fun strategy games ever. The time period is relativley untouched by other games, and CA would not have to live up to anything, and could just focus on making a good game.
    Sure there would have to be some creativity invloved for making tanks and planes a usefull but not overkill addition to an army, but for god's sake, they're called the CREATIVE Assembley.
    WW1 was definatley one of the most large scale, brutal, deadly and terrible wars in history, but hell it would be fun to conquer europe in a time like that.
    I will say that this is likley the last possible time period for a TW game, because from this point on wars were largley squad based, and of a less grand scale.
    I appologize if what I said has allready beeen said, and im sure it has been.
    War is Hell.... but who ever said Hell wasnt alot of fun?
  • CorpiusCorpius Moderator Posts: 885Registered Users, Moderators
    edited January 2012
    @Corpius

    There was just as much a "Great War" on the Eastern front as there was on the Western, some 5 million Russians died of which 2 million was military deaths.

    As for the first part, you misunderstood. I never claimed there was no Eastern Front, or campaigns in the Middle East. I said the First World War would have to be decided at the Western Front. That is why so much (also profesional, i.e historical) attention is given to the Western Front. Somehow stating the war could've been won elsewhere or other fronts were more significant with regrads to the outcome of the First World War is, like I said, a flawed line of reasoning. Casualty numbers are futhermore not representative of influencing the outcome. Looking at the Dardanelles campaign, with the British losing 205,000 men, the French 47,000, the Turks 251,000 and Australia and New Zealand 8,000 and 2,000 respectively, the only conclusion has to be that inspite of all these losses, the Dardanelles campaign contributed nothing (certainly from an Allied perspective) to the greater goal of winning the war.
    Total War Forums' Rules

    "One loves one's fellow-man so much more when one is bent on killing him."
    - Captain Julian Henry Francis Grenfell, November 1914

    Anything I say can and will be used against me.
  • ResPublicaResPublica Senior Member Posts: 589Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    GrudgeNL wrote: »
    The biggest reason why people don't want WW1 as a TW game is rather simple, a reason I forgot to include.

    You think advanced infantry formations, tanks, battleships, armored cars, mines, trenches, aircraft, bombers, machine guns and gas are simple? As much as i love S2TW, it has low unit variation and the game is confined to a small map.

    Also how is "honor" employed in S2TW?
  • Brenticus1Brenticus1 Senior Member Posts: 643Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    "advanced infantry formations"? The pattern of battle in WW1 for the stalemate was barrage to take out the wire and kill a couple enemies, and charge. Gas was added to it, but until tanks and vimy ridge, there was nothing really novel about the approach of warfare for this time.
    The more you kill, the less the lag.
  • naishonaisho Senior Member USAPosts: 3,416Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    Republican, you misunderstood him. That sentence is a introductory statement not the thesis. His thesis is one sentence down talking about perspectives.

    Also how did you get "honor" in to a question from that? He used honor as an example of perception.
    1---/\__/\
    1=(O-"-O)=/\
    1--- / | | \--/ -|
    1---| \-/ \-_ /
    1--( Neko )

    Naisho the Neko

    "You have raised assorted issues under what might be termed a “I-don’t-like-it because-I-say-it’s-not-historical” banner. This isn't quite the same as "justified", I'm sorry to say." -MikeB
  • SasuSasu Moderator FinlandPosts: 8,876Registered Users, Moderators
    edited January 2012
    There is no TW with individual historical battles or frontlines within the campaign. There's only the starting position with regions, units, tech, etc. from (relatively close to) that historical setting. As there was no (extensive) trench warfare in the beginning of the WWI, I don't see why it would have to be like that in the game. Trench warfare was something of a step in the arms race of that era; a reply to the strong arguments that weapons like the machine gun and the artillery barrage presented. I see no reason why there even would have be the Western front, per se.

    There would naturally have to be trench warfare in a WWI themed TW, but that would be a tech tree feature and you could avoid it as was done in the Eastern front (but it would not be easy, as trenches in the battlefield were well known to warfare in the late 19th, early 20th century).
  • SmokeScreenSmokeScreen Senior Member Posts: 2,429Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    @Sasu

    Good point, trench warfare is something you strive to get through the tech tree. It would be like in ETW, sometimes the enemy AI gets Fire by Rank really fast and sometimes half of the game has gone by before they finally do get it.


    As for realistic casualties, I don't see it as bad or boring if arty would be the "main" killer of troops, as long as we don't get any arty armies :P
    "I just traded Finland's military to Kenya for 50 lions"

    The awesome World War 1 Thread
  • GrudgeNLGrudgeNL Senior Member Posts: 7,148Registered Users, Cakes!
    edited January 2012
    Republican wrote: »
    You think advanced infantry formations, tanks, battleships, armored cars, mines, trenches, aircraft, bombers, machine guns and gas are simple? As much as i love S2TW, it has low unit variation and the game is confined to a small map.

    Also how is "honor" employed in S2TW?

    I think you completely misread that comment. I meant the reason why people don't want WW1 to be a TW game is simple. Not the implementation of game modes themself.

    Also, I have several thoughts in how to implement those, but I don't really have that much time xD
    Also I didn't say honour isn't in Shogun 2, I was merely referring how people combine honour with samurais.
    daelin4 wrote: »
    Total War games tend to not be very historical; I'm sure most of you all know that. So that means at best a WW1-themed TW game would merely be set around that time frame with respective units. Left to the player, the possibility of replaying that type of warfare is pretty small- after all, in Shogun2 you can simply spam Ashigaru units and not train any samurai at all, negating the type of warfare one would expect out of a game based on Japanese warfare, where the samurai was premiere.

    Exactly. TW Grand Campaigns have never been historical. In fact, from the point the player gets in control, he can do whatever he wants. Thus a WW1 Grand campaign doesn't need to be trench warfare for years and years. The player can do something different and prevent mistakes generals made during the war.


    ---

    I have to say though, thanks to everyone. I have noticed some clever ideas for WW1 TW gameplay. This is much better when some invididuals try to close people's mouth when they mention it on these forums.


    EDIT; I think I'll create a new thread later, with proposed solutions for all the challenges a WW1 TW concept would have.
    Grudge's Mods
    Total War: Karling - Coming soon...-ish
    Grudge's Total War: Attila - Sassanid UI skin here on the Steam Workshop
  • HeirofAlexanderHeirofAlexander Senior Member Posts: 1,088Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    Wouldn't Thrench Warfare be able to do if you just made the AI passive in the battles from certain year, like when the battles began to involve threnches. So then if you want to do it Historically Accurate, then you can be defensive too, boom, Thrench Warfare. Or making the guns fore accurate so that it would cost alot of men to advance to the enemy.

    There also could be a way to do it with battles ongoing for several turns, such as you attack with your army on the campaign map, and deploy your troops, then you can exit, and wait for some turns later or 'till the AI decides to attack. Just don't that they are in battle.
  • joegouvinjoegouvin Senior Member Posts: 162Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    I think that trench warfare through teach tree is a great idea, it offers a realistic aprroch to an arms race, and would be quite interesting. one question is how big would the map be, I am not sure that I want a map like the napoleon total war map. And naval combat would need and overhaul, but I supose land combat would be changed significantly as well
    War is Hell.... but who ever said Hell wasnt alot of fun?
  • naishonaisho Senior Member USAPosts: 3,416Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    I hate to spoil everybody's grand idea about trench warfare... but it was actually already invented. The American Civil War made use of trench warfare and so did the Crimean war. The only kind of tech tree for a trench you could have would be elaborate defenses but not the actual ability to make trenches itself.
    1---/\__/\
    1=(O-"-O)=/\
    1--- / | | \--/ -|
    1---| \-/ \-_ /
    1--( Neko )

    Naisho the Neko

    "You have raised assorted issues under what might be termed a “I-don’t-like-it because-I-say-it’s-not-historical” banner. This isn't quite the same as "justified", I'm sorry to say." -MikeB
  • SmokeScreenSmokeScreen Senior Member Posts: 2,429Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    @Naisho

    Trenches were even dug in the 30-years war, but before WW1 trench warfare wasn't part of military doctrine. And they had never before been constructed in such a elaborate manner, trenches, dugouts, machinegun nests, sandbags and barbwire all "new" things on the battle field.
    I think it would still be a great idea to have it in the tech tree.
    "I just traded Finland's military to Kenya for 50 lions"

    The awesome World War 1 Thread
  • naishonaisho Senior Member USAPosts: 3,416Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    What I mean is, they were already in existence as possibilities in stalemates. Simply to have it unlock in a tech tree is worthless, but to have more elaborate ones unlock is a different question. Having it unlock in a tech tree to me is like saying "you can't build forts which everybody knows about until you find the right tech".
    1---/\__/\
    1=(O-"-O)=/\
    1--- / | | \--/ -|
    1---| \-/ \-_ /
    1--( Neko )

    Naisho the Neko

    "You have raised assorted issues under what might be termed a “I-don’t-like-it because-I-say-it’s-not-historical” banner. This isn't quite the same as "justified", I'm sorry to say." -MikeB
  • Ace_BlazerAce_Blazer Senior Member Toronto, CanadaPosts: 5,912Registered Users
    edited January 2012
    You can argue how having a TW game for the period would not capture the real essence of WWI, but the series has always leaned towards the game play side of things.

    In Rome all you really had to do was meld your whole army into a line or blob and then flank flank flank flank in set piece battles not truly indicative of the time period. Splitting up and marching your army in a vanguard, a rear guard, a main force, and having cavalry attachments that pursue, scout, and harass an army for days on end does not fit the TW formula at all.

    Napoleon was fun, but again the essence was never truly captured. Trying to use real life strategies and maneuver doctrines cannot be implemented on a turn based map, and the actual battles were almost a farce with token nods to Napoleonic formations.

    Shogun 2, you have troops moving at 100mph with one minute battles, and massed katana samurai among other things.

    I think if TW goes WWI we can't expect a real faithful offering besides what kind of troops you'd get, and that's true for any time period. The main focus for this series is fun, and in this case if trench warfare, and overthrowing the Czar is fun then those will be incorporated. Anything too complicated and elaborate that doesn't stick to the formula will probably be left out. Even if you were allowed to play god with 40 different units, there's no way you could ever have anything close to a real WWI battle.
    My Rome 2 PC: Intel i5-4670, nVidia 760GTX, 8GB RAM, 120GB SSD, NZXT Vulcan mATX case
    Please view the Total War Forum: Terms and Conditions.
    Buttons the Kitten needs your help. Click here to save a kitten today.
«13456749
Sign In or Register to comment.