How likely is a new Total War game based in WW1?

ynitedp#7030

My dream is to play a Total War game based on the victorian era or in the beginning of WW1 and being able to play as nations such as Austria-Hungary, German Empire, Russia, Italy, UK, France, Ottoman Empire...

The most similar thing to this is Empire: Total War, however I find it to be set a little bit too early in world's history to my liking. I was excited when I read some rumors a year ago about a new historical Total War game, and when I read an announcement by CA that they were looking for people to work in their incoming games, specifically saying that they were looking for people in order to design vehicles, I thought that it was almost certain that the next game would be set in WW1 (I assumed the vehicles would be tanks or something similar).

However it seems that in almost all likelihood it's going to be Medieval 3. Despite this, is the door still open to a victorian era-WW1 based Total War?

davedave1124#4773

Victoria has an equal chance to any other game as we’ve already had a Victorian era game.

WW1 on the other hand is unknown, although the head producer of TW has said in an interview that he’s be up for a WW2 game so, it’s of course possible but no one knows

SiWI#8629

We have no real idea.
There are hints, for example CA hired people to male "3d vehicle model" base on photographic technology, as you mentioned.

Meaning that CA does look into making someone where photographs exist.


M3 has definitely something on CA's mind given that it is probably the most requested TW.

It is also a kinda "easy" option, since if you "just" take m2 and modernize it to Wh3 standards (not fantasy units obviously) and you already have something very different to M2.

WW1/Victoria ect had the advantage while be more work and hence more risk it would open doors for new stuff.

Jam#4399

Battles n WW1 and WW2 were fought in scattered manner otherwise units would be obliterated in seconds or minutes only by Machine Guns and Bombs.

This is different from TW battle fundamentals.

Commisar#2307

We don't really know, but I'd say none in a format we would recognise. WW1 just doesn't fit the TW formula as it exists and would need so much changing that it would be TW in name only. SEGA has companies in a better position to do it such as Relic.

TW as it stands just can't do the strategic situations and choices while also unable to do the battles in any reasonable level.

SiWI#8629 said:

M3 has definitely something on CA's mind given that it is probably the most requested TW.

It is also a kinda "easy" option, since if you "just" take m2 and modernize it to Wh3 standards (not fantasy units obviously) and you already have something very different to M2.

Would say 3K would be a better modernization. Better diplomacy! but yeah the format is already there.

AgentGB#6492

I think there has always been reservations by the fan base for TW venturing into the WW1/2 domain. Its somewhat of a risky era to move into given peoples concerns about the Total War formula alongside the saturated market of WW2 games often portrayed in varies ways from strategic command to tactical. But i must say, in recent times, i haven't had a WW2 or WW1 game that's satisfied my itch at the tactical level, the closes being the Close Combat series. At the strategic level Hearts of Iron captures the period very well & does satisfy my itch there.

I do think if CA did venture into these era's they'd do a good job, and would be incredibly action packed, especially if they bring in some of the FPS elements with stuff like flying bi-planes that could allow for interesting multiplayer modes of aerial battles or combined commander/FPS MP play. It would most likely be a shock to long term Total War players, of what they're use too & that would be the risk.

Think if they did do something, it may be worth confining it to specific theater, scope, to nail down the game-play, technical needs to realize that. WW1, does have alot of variety in units, tactics, war fighting, both at the tactical & strategic level, if they dig into the nuances often overlooked for good coordinated artillery fire, the combined elements required, from recon balloons, planes, telephone lines, spotters spotting tin triangles on the back of troops to coordinate artillery fire, the command & control, more nuanced effects on troop conditions, the terrain effects over seasons and from battle. To properly realize it, it would be a fairly high budgeted title. Also done in a smart way that allows some autonomy or hands off management. Since ideally you don't wanna be clicking buttons telling a squad to throw grenades, or you perhaps expect a tank to deploy smoke if coming under AT fire on its own, perhaps even means to coordinate an assault to erupt at a specific time alongside supporting elements. Not sure there though.

At the same time, if they were mulling making a Warhammer 40k title, they'd be absolute primed and ready to go with the R&D and what they've learnt from making such an era title. But how such a title is initially received i would imagine would decide if its something they'd further pursue. Initially when Empire was released, it was lambasted for breaking from the Total War formula, but is now quite a beloved title alongside Napoleon, bugs aside.

The new Company of Heroes kinda falls short on expectations, it very much stuck with its old formula and is lambasted for being more of the same to some extent but with a campaign. What COH does well, is things like armour direction hits, etc, while Close Combat captures the more slower pace tactical thinking that a Total War game would benefit from imo, alongside all the nuances of troops conditions, ammo, great maps and how its linked to what is a very basic campaign map, yet feels fitting because nuance wise its very interlinked in how it remembers your direction of attack, your last held positions on the battle map, supplies etc.

The safe bet would probably be to do ME:3, or a similar beloved period like Empire, Napoleon, especially in these difficult economic times. Ideally, think it would be better if they push in both directions.

• Develop Medieval 3 & develop an ultimate Medieval experience
  
• Develop an industrial war setting like WW1 or WW2 to break out into a different setting while lining up the potential for a 40k game, especially if they work alongside GW/Henry Cavil to time it right with any big releases on the screen.
  
• Develop WH3 for as long as the fans want it, so they can have their fully realized game at the same time being a safe earner in the meantime.
  
• Will give special mention to a Pike and Shot setting, think that could be interesting and refreshing too.
  

If going full Victorian, there are plenty of events to cover if wanting to keep the scope small in a saga sense while trying to implement best approaches to tackling a more modern industrial war title. The Civil War itself was a precursor to WW1 style type fighting, with trenches, and weapon lethality surpassing tactics and means to counter them.

The key is though, is not to make the game heavily focused on meat grinder tactics that can become pretty old fast tactically, but like all TW titles and formula's before hand, rewarding army composition, equipment and tactics for overcoming objectives and the enemy. That is part of the TW formula imo alongside the campaign map. How that is communicated, designed and developed, for ease of the player to use while capturing the nuances will be key.

For example in Close Combat, when assaulting a position, you would suppress it with mortars, machine guns, and smoke up your approach to allow your assault teams to get close, while having a follow up team to consolidate or counter a counter assault to retake the position. All this required timing, and reading the landscape to find the best approach to ensure you wouldn't be swept with enveloping fire from a flank, which meant securing other positions to allow such an assault to take place that could threaten it, while also gauging your ammunition use for the battle to achieve set targets on the battle map. In Close Combat, you'd more likely just blindly suppress key buildings with machine gun and mortar fire before launching an assault after the sneak phase had been discovered of trying to creep into the positions. Its not like COH where everything is loud, fastpaced and explosive, you have to out think your opponent and there is generally time to do so. When fighting erupted it was brutal, explosive and deadly if caught on the hop, but could also react, and given ammunition was a detail, you could have very explosive phases, but at a cost to expending that ammunition. Be that shelling a position in a prelude to an assault or covering a withdrawal, wasn't just endless dakka, you're balancing the cost of using steel versus flesh, sometimes it would be prudent to let a squad adsorb alot of the enemies mortar rounds for example so as to open up an opportunity to push an assault later, when playing a human opponent, you aren't expending mortar rounds, and instead use it to break up assaults, pin positions, cover retreats, deploy smoke, and to be careful of how much you use in a 30min battle. Guns could jam, break, tanks could lose their tracks or become bogged down, crew could be knocked unconscious or incapacitated reducing the effectiveness of the tank, meaning the tank commander may find himself now the loader, shooter and spotter because two of crew mates in the turret are dead.

Close Combat, got that Band of Brothers feeling, of units progressing also, winning medals, and not the arcadey feeling of turning troops out of a barracks. Obviously there is generally a survivor bias in war, and the realities can be closer to a arcade Red Alert 2 game of just turning out cannon fodder to win attritional fights. But even in a WW1 game where that is more likely what you'd see with companies losing 70% of their men on the first day of the somme. I think there are ways to still implement attachment to "Generic Rifle Company No.6" with little design implementations. Close Combat managed this for example and would perhaps be easier in a WW2 game. Not mention would be easier to do with aerial/naval combat.

But its generally the dilemmas of putting the player into a position that they end up expending experienced battle harden troops to achieve an objective for the holistic picture than just throwing troops you print out of a barracks at a problem. That why i also think replenishment in the TW series needs a look out as a whole, the TW crowd love the ease of easy replenishment & are adverse to taking meaningful casualties, but also makes it feel meaningless when you know your army will be up to full strength or can recruit lost assets. In Close Combat, if your company started off with 4 MG teams, 3 Mortar teams in the roster pool, each one lost over a duration of a campaign would reduce your combat power to efficiently achieve objectives, same if you end up expending too many assault squads, you'd have alot of heavy metal to hit positions with, but no reliable troops to take them. Your manpower/experienced war fighters wasn't endless and it was quite possibile to "spend" a division/battalion/company combat effectiveness that you'd have to merge them into ad hoc groups to get something resembling a force with enough combat power to take or hold a position.

But yeah, an ww1/ww2 game can be very interesting, but how that looks in everyone head can be different i guess, and i agree could be high risk given the aversion by Total War fans to venturing past the formula of set piece traditional battles.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

I'll just speak the truth about this topic.

The chances of CA actually making a WW1 TW game is pretty much absolute ZERO.

I mean, with how easy it could be to just spam machineguns and all, it would no doubt devolve into what spamming those sorts of things at your enemies all the time and really kill much of the possible strategic options that the TW battles are supposed to be known for.

And don't believe people when they say that a Victorian Era TW game would be much better, because it wouldn't.

Sure, maybe they could improve on 3K's diplomatic options, but they shouldn't try to turn these games into those stupid Paradox games.

It's kind of like the Battlefield games in a sense.

These are the TW games and shouldn't try to chase all the stupid trends or copy what other strategy games are doing, as they're often what other companies try to copy.

CA should stick to what actually works within good TW games instead of trying to needlessly take risks where they don't need to.

AgentGB#6492

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

I mean, with how easy it could be to just spam machineguns and all, it would no doubt devolve into what spamming those sorts of things at your enemies all the time and really kill much of the possible strategic options that the TW battles are supposed to be known for.

I think anything can be spammed when there are missing limitations in the games formula. Horse Archer spam was a thing in ME2 multiplayer, General Bodyguard in the campaign given they were the only unit to automatically replinsh and the general strength of them. Magic & Single Entity spam in WH, or ranged units.

The real life limitations in terms of logistics via fodder for horses or arrows themselves aren't really factored into TW games. Henry V for example preparing his invasion of France with vast quantities of arrows at the cost to the treasury, levying goose feathers by decree for the fletchers, enforcing laws, quality & punishments for not following a certain pattern for the arrowhead itself at the blacksmith. When an archer was expected to fire 15 arrows a minute, 500 archers could expend 7500 arrows in a minute if just loosen volley after volley. That's a pretty expensive battle & army to keep in the field, especially when arrows degrade when not properly stored or affected by weather conditions.

Braveheart is a poor example, but there is grain of truth to the dark humour in this.



Its same reason why in WW1 & WW2, most general infantry were issued with rifles, the thinking being that they'd end up wasting ammo needlessly instead of taking precise aim. The thinking continued even into the Vietnam war, where the "fully automatic" option wasn't available for the M16, with only single shot and semi automatic options only to stop GI's wasting their ammo.

The natural balance trade off's to what is spammable or not just aren't factored into the game. A war horse required a specific diet of fodder, and logistics & cost to boot to ensure you could field them. The same for a archer heavy army.

But even if perhaps facing a sizeable foe to support such logistics of endless arrows and cavalry, the combined arms element is still a factor. The reason for why you wouldn't solely just have an army of snipers, tanks or machine guns. Murphy Law on Combat "Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at". A machine gun nest unsupported isn't invincible.

Although i will say, the closest representation to proper combined arms in a TW title where spamming one unit wasn't really viable is actually Empire/Napoleon to some degree. I mean, you could for example spam rockets, artillery, dragoons, but it would not be terribly efficient compared to a combined arms army or other titles where Horse archers or single entity units reign supreme.

imo, you have to factor in the real elements that would naturally make those weapons/units unspammable. Machine gun barrels can only fire so many rounds until the barrel needs to be changed or you've exhausted your ammo all the meantime being a target that can also be suppressed from multiple directions with bolt action rifles.

I just think there are ways to put soft cap limitations on certain units either by their equipment availability or the logistics/cost required for the unit to preform its role and the demand that would put on logistic/baggage train. If you're Napoleon and dragging around 80 artillery pieces, pulled by horses, that fodder required for the horses, black powder and shot required to keep all those guns firing over a campaign & is replaced at cost, not auto generated/replenished after a turn. So in reality, how many guns, men and horses can you actually afford to keep in the field for long duration's? If troops are starving and have run out of provisions, when do they start eating the horses? How many of those troops are capable of foraging? how many camp followers are required to service and look after equipment and horses? Will you begin to start splitting up your forces to conduct raid/foraging parties to acquire provisions? Are your supply lines secure to your port, castle, fort etc to ensure you can receive replenishment in terms of troops, provisions and munitions?

The diplomatic system from 3K is rightfully lauded, but i think there is something to be said about the supply system too, and how that could've went someway to dictating army composition, or atleast how viable it was to spam certain units with risk to being supply heavy in cost instead of nimble and better able to "live of the land" forage. There general trade offs to ammo hungry weapons.

SiWI#8629

Commisar#2307 said:

We don't really know, but I'd say none in a format we would recognise. WW1 just doesn't fit the TW formula as it exists and would need so much changing that it would be TW in name only. SEGA has companies in a better position to do it such as Relic.

TW as it stands just can't do the strategic situations and choices while also unable to do the battles in any reasonable level.

SiWI#8629 said:

M3 has definitely something on CA's mind given that it is probably the most requested TW.

It is also a kinda "easy" option, since if you "just" take m2 and modernize it to Wh3 standards (not fantasy units obviously) and you already have something very different to M2.

Would say 3K would be a better modernization. Better diplomacy! but yeah the format is already there.

the point was less TW WH 3 but TW WH 3"era" TW.

Buz yes, 3k in terms of diplomacy would be a good point for any TW.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

AgentGB#6492 said:

Well, I don't think the TW games should ever get quite so overly complicated either. Because like I said, these aren't the Paradox games, but the Total War games.

But my point is that there's too big of a chance that it will become far too easy to just do stupid things like corner camp and such other nonsense rather than actually using real tactics to overcome your enemy.

And that's the real problem with setting a TW game in the Victorian era, let alone WW1 or 2, the fact that the tactics of TW just wouldn't work as they could in past periods.

I mean, in a game like Napoleon, everyone had guns, but the level of technology also allowed for things like cavalry and melee combat to still be useful, where as in the Victorian era, the range of their weapons would be far greater, which would limit how well you could use melee tactics.

AgentGB#6492

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

AgentGB#6492 said:

Well, I don't think the TW games should ever get quite so overly complicated either. Because like I said, these aren't the Paradox games, but the Total War games.

But my point is that there's too big of a chance that it will become far too easy to just do stupid things like corner camp and such other nonsense rather than actually using real tactics to overcome your enemy.

And that's the real problem with setting a TW game in the Victorian era, let alone WW1 or 2, the fact that the tactics of TW just wouldn't work as they could in past periods.

I mean, in a game like Napoleon, everyone had guns, but the level of technology also allowed for things like cavalry and melee combat to still be useful, where as in the Victorian era, the range of their weapons would be far greater, which would limit how well you could use melee tactics.

Yeah corner camping is just an unfortunate limitation of the game, there never really been a golden bullet to properly solve it, outside of placing capture the flag points or altering the map terrain as such to make it detrimental to defend a corner.

I know what you're saying in a WW1 or WW2 setting, but in Close Combat, corner camping was indeed detrimental for a variety of reasons that were grounded in "some" logic.

For Example:

• Passive Map control: dictated by strategic capture points. For example a strategic crossroad on a battle map, a bell tower, map edge roads connecting to adjacent battle maps that allowed for a point of retreat, reinforcement & supply.
  
• Multiple battles could take place on a single battle map, if you held less than two points, you were pushed off the battle map in the direction that was still friendly/neutral or wasn't captured by the enemy. If all roads leading off the map were captured, your brigade/battalion was essentially pocketed and would receive no supplies, if also holding less than two flags, your battalion was annihilated.
  
• This meant if you corner camped, the enemy could essentially win the battle, or force you to retreat due to outmaneuvering your position on the battle map. Historically, even if defending, you place your army at a point that the advancing army has to engage & cannot bypass. For example if holding the road to Arnhem, the allies will need to dislodge you off that road to get XXX corp through, if you choose to not defend that road, and instead corner camp, you've basically failed to fulfill defending the road, the allies have no reason to dislodge you out of a corner and can just leave a battalion to keep you pinned in the corner while the lions share of the corp continue to the main strategic objective. Obviously the ai intention in TW is to annihilate the players forces regardless, so will to its own detriment fight unfavorable engagements.
  

Now for some reason, not entirely a massive fan of capture points in TW games, perhaps in how they're portrayed, they give off a very arcadey feeling instead of a subtle more authentic feeling. I think examples like roads, bridges leading to adjacent battle maps etc can more easily portray a authentic feeling, for example capturing Pegasus Bridge on D-Day to stop the panzers rolling down the allies line onto the beachheads is for example a strategic point/flag, and would not be beneficial to defend a corner back from the bridge like one would perhaps do in WH.

When its comes to melee, surprisingly Close Combat has a fair degree of melee than you would expect. Remember, this before everyone is carrying automatic rifles. You either have troops with bolt action rifles, with a 5 round clip, garand rifles that gave off a distinctive ping when the clip was emptied, and often signals to the enemy soldier a good time to assault. Ammunition was run out, MG barrels and clips would need to be changed. There was a reason why shovels, trench knifes, knuckle dusters, pistols, shotguns, grenades were preferred in trench fighting to a bayonet on a rifle. When it comes down to it, if you cannot surround and starve a position into submission, it always results to close combat, but perhaps not the full on melee aspect you mean.

When it comes to tactics, there are very much tactics in play in WW1/2. But its somewhat a different mindset, but at its core the elements still pull from traditional hammer and anvil, spearheads, turning a flank, pocketing, enveloping. Its just how you think of the modern components in that role. For example Tanks/mechanized infantry would be the successor to cavalry, used to create or exploit gaps, foot infantry would be your main holding line & then if you get into the nuances of infantry, there are varies roles, from engineers, snipers, reconnaissances, assault teams, AT teams, etc that would make up varies infantry companies, with tank squadrons/battalions attached to fulfill a combined arms role. Then their air support/artillery, and signal teams to coordinate it. Like chess pieces, they all preform certain roles and the impact for not having certain pieces will affect your tactics and planning.

When it comes to the victorian period, its a peculiar period, since they're essentially still trying to wage war in a Napoleonic style somewhat but with more lethal weaponry, if counting nations of equal fighting each other. I would agree here, that this could be a tricky era to cover as a result, unless perhaps focusing on a specific timeframe, and even so would feel closer to FOTS anyway. That said, all unit roles imo played a crucial function, you still needed cav to scout, exploit openings, outflank the enemy etc, they just couldn't be as brash as in prior eras. I mean, there was very much a reason why they were still employed, even into WW2, they just started employing them differently to meet the challenges of the day.

I think though, getting the gameplay of a WW2 game right could be tricky though, as you mention, easier said than done, the tactics are incredibly nuanced to get that feeling right, and perhaps doesn't have the grandeur or organizing massive pitched battles with sweeping maneuvering at the brigade or division level, but instead microing an AT squad to setup at a crossroads to intercept armour while giving a MG sweeping fire to cover the AT team from enemy assault squads attempting to flush out such positions in advance of the armour, while both sides coordinate artillery/indirect fire to pepper each other, suppress key components or break up assaults. Again, Close Combat series does this very well, but unfortunately, feels a bit outdated along with its support. But imo, what CA shouldn't do is make a game like Company of Heroes, imo there is still away to achieve alot of the cool action while still being very nuanced with the gameplay and pacing. Does require a different mindset, to see how increbily tactical this can be and the whims of war & how a stray shell can turn finding its mark can see a key component taken offline weakening that flank or supporting fire. Gotta be thinking in a bit more detail than drawing a box around a mob of units and charging them in, best example i can give is to think of it more like chess, where the the true threats aren't so obvious & relies on each piece supporting each other.

These visuals, but with nuance to gameplay and tactics. I mean can you imagine aircraft carriers and naval battles for a WW2 TW game, island hoping in the pacific etc. But yeah, its a pipe dream, and big risk, but no harm in talking shop about it, but appreciate the counter argument to keep things in perspetive.

Battle of Taranto (great visuals depicted from this art)

But even if you look into the battle, and what needed to happen to pull it off successfully, there alot of dynamics at play and preparation, which required tactics and planning.

Temudhun#3587

Imo the most complicated thing to take into account in WW1 is how to make trench warfare fun and engaging. The best thing I could come up with is two or more armies sieging each other on an open field.
Air warfare, automatic weapons, tanks and to some extent modern field artillery have all been used by this point in TW titles, though planes would present the challenge of having to move constantly rather than use stationary flight, but I don't think it would be a challenge. Nor would be torpedoes, submarines, bombardments or gaz attacks imo. But trench warfare is so different from what we're used to in TW titles and so integral to WW1 that, ironically, it may be harder to properly represent than some later wars from yhe 20th century.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

AgentGB#6492 said:

Well, I'm not saying that there's no tactics or anything that can be used in the settings of the Victorians era, WW1, or WW2, but just that those kinds of battles wouldn't work within the TW battles.

I mean, from what I've seen over the years, the TW battles work best when you can have stuff like the interplay between infantry and cavalry as well as having ranged and melee combat both matter, but not to the point where one is like ten times better than the other. But I'm sure you get the idea.

davedave1124#4773

AgentGB#6492 said:

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

AgentGB#6492 said:

Well, I don't think the TW games should ever get quite so overly complicated either. Because like I said, these aren't the Paradox games, but the Total War games.

But my point is that there's too big of a chance that it will become far too easy to just do stupid things like corner camp and such other nonsense rather than actually using real tactics to overcome your enemy.

And that's the real problem with setting a TW game in the Victorian era, let alone WW1 or 2, the fact that the tactics of TW just wouldn't work as they could in past periods.

I mean, in a game like Napoleon, everyone had guns, but the level of technology also allowed for things like cavalry and melee combat to still be useful, where as in the Victorian era, the range of their weapons would be far greater, which would limit how well you could use melee tactics.

Yeah corner camping is just an unfortunate limitation of the game, there never really been a golden bullet to properly solve it, outside of placing capture the flag points or altering the map terrain as such to make it detrimental to defend a corner.

I know what you're saying in a WW1 or WW2 setting, but in Close Combat, corner camping was indeed detrimental for a variety of reasons that were grounded in "some" logic.

For Example:

• Passive Map control: dictated by strategic capture points. For example a strategic crossroad on a battle map, a bell tower, map edge roads connecting to adjacent battle maps that allowed for a point of retreat, reinforcement & supply.
  
• Multiple battles could take place on a single battle map, if you held less than two points, you were pushed off the battle map in the direction that was still friendly/neutral or wasn't captured by the enemy. If all roads leading off the map were captured, your brigade/battalion was essentially pocketed and would receive no supplies, if also holding less than two flags, your battalion was annihilated.
  
• This meant if you corner camped, the enemy could essentially win the battle, or force you to retreat due to outmaneuvering your position on the battle map. Historically, even if defending, you place your army at a point that the advancing army has to engage & cannot bypass. For example if holding the road to Arnhem, the allies will need to dislodge you off that road to get XXX corp through, if you choose to not defend that road, and instead corner camp, you've basically failed to fulfill defending the road, the allies have no reason to dislodge you out of a corner and can just leave a battalion to keep you pinned in the corner while the lions share of the corp continue to the main strategic objective. Obviously the ai intention in TW is to annihilate the players forces regardless, so will to its own detriment fight unfavorable engagements.
  

Now for some reason, not entirely a massive fan of capture points in TW games, perhaps in how they're portrayed, they give off a very arcadey feeling instead of a subtle more authentic feeling. I think examples like roads, bridges leading to adjacent battle maps etc can more easily portray a authentic feeling, for example capturing Pegasus Bridge on D-Day to stop the panzers rolling down the allies line onto the beachheads is for example a strategic point/flag, and would not be beneficial to defend a corner back from the bridge like one would perhaps do in WH.

When its comes to melee, surprisingly Close Combat has a fair degree of melee than you would expect. Remember, this before everyone is carrying automatic rifles. You either have troops with bolt action rifles, with a 5 round clip, garand rifles that gave off a distinctive ping when the clip was emptied, and often signals to the enemy soldier a good time to assault. Ammunition was run out, MG barrels and clips would need to be changed. There was a reason why shovels, trench knifes, knuckle dusters, pistols, shotguns, grenades were preferred in trench fighting to a bayonet on a rifle. When it comes down to it, if you cannot surround and starve a position into submission, it always results to close combat, but perhaps not the full on melee aspect you mean.

When it comes to tactics, there are very much tactics in play in WW1/2. But its somewhat a different mindset, but at its core the elements still pull from traditional hammer and anvil, spearheads, turning a flank, pocketing, enveloping. Its just how you think of the modern components in that role. For example Tanks/mechanized infantry would be the successor to cavalry, used to create or exploit gaps, foot infantry would be your main holding line & then if you get into the nuances of infantry, there are varies roles, from engineers, snipers, reconnaissances, assault teams, AT teams, etc that would make up varies infantry companies, with tank squadrons/battalions attached to fulfill a combined arms role. Then their air support/artillery, and signal teams to coordinate it. Like chess pieces, they all preform certain roles and the impact for not having certain pieces will affect your tactics and planning.

When it comes to the victorian period, its a peculiar period, since they're essentially still trying to wage war in a Napoleonic style somewhat but with more lethal weaponry, if counting nations of equal fighting each other. I would agree here, that this could be a tricky era to cover as a result, unless perhaps focusing on a specific timeframe, and even so would feel closer to FOTS anyway. That said, all unit roles imo played a crucial function, you still needed cav to scout, exploit openings, outflank the enemy etc, they just couldn't be as brash as in prior eras. I mean, there was very much a reason why they were still employed, even into WW2, they just started employing them differently to meet the challenges of the day.

I think though, getting the gameplay of a WW2 game right could be tricky though, as you mention, easier said than done, the tactics are incredibly nuanced to get that feeling right, and perhaps doesn't have the grandeur or organizing massive pitched battles with sweeping maneuvering at the brigade or division level, but instead microing an AT squad to setup at a crossroads to intercept armour while giving a MG sweeping fire to cover the AT team from enemy assault squads attempting to flush out such positions in advance of the armour, while both sides coordinate artillery/indirect fire to pepper each other, suppress key components or break up assaults. Again, Close Combat series does this very well, but unfortunately, feels a bit outdated along with its support. But imo, what CA shouldn't do is make a game like Company of Heroes, imo there is still away to achieve alot of the cool action while still being very nuanced with the gameplay and pacing. Does require a different mindset, to see how increbily tactical this can be and the whims of war & how a stray shell can turn finding its mark can see a key component taken offline weakening that flank or supporting fire. Gotta be thinking in a bit more detail than drawing a box around a mob of units and charging them in, best example i can give is to think of it more like chess, where the the true threats aren't so obvious & relies on each piece supporting each other.

These visuals, but with nuance to gameplay and tactics. I mean can you imagine aircraft carriers and naval battles for a WW2 TW game, island hoping in the pacific etc. But yeah, its a pipe dream, and big risk, but no harm in talking shop about it, but appreciate the counter argument to keep things in perspetive.

Battle of Taranto (great visuals depicted from this art)

But even if you look into the battle, and what needed to happen to pull it off successfully, there alot of dynamics at play and preparation, which required tactics and planning.

I imagine that WW1 and 2 is new ground and CA may have to put some thought into it, although one of their producers has said it’s something they’d look at.

In terms of Victoria then that’s a no brainier as they’ve successfully done this in Fall of the Samurai. The Victorian technology and weapon variants translated very well.

Jam#4399

TW is about squadron and battalion.

How would that work in WW1 and WW2?

mitthrawnuruodo#4895

Very unlikely, I hope at least. Because WW1 is a terrible setting for a Total War game. WW1 is extremely limited in terms of tactics, units and role of leaders.

I would be happy to support Total World War (focused on WW2 which is a more tactical diverse and interesting setting), a different kind of game made by a different team within CA that does not interfere with our Total War whose logo is, quite aptly, a horseman with a sword in hand, because that one kind of soldier has been present in every Total War game released till date.

P.s. after writing that, I realized that mounted swordsman thing is technically true for WW1 as well LOL. But we know how that ends, We have all seen Warhorse.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

mitthrawnuruodo#4895 said:

Very unlikely, I hope at least. Because WW1 is a terrible setting for a Total War game. WW1 is extremely limited in terms of tactics, units and role of leaders.

I would be happy to support Total World War (focused on WW2 which is a more tactical diverse and interesting setting), a different kind of game made by a different team within CA that does not interfere with our Total War whose logo is, quite aptly, a horseman with a sword in hand, because that one kind of soldier has been present in every Total War game released till date.

P.s. after writing that, I realized that mounted swordsman thing is technically true for WW1 as well LOL. But we know how that ends, We have all seen Warhorse.

Exactly!

I don't hate the historical era of WW1, but it is pretty freaking obvious that there would be a LOT of limitations on what sort of tactics could really be effective in a WW1 TW game. And that's never a good thing.

Commisar#2307

mitthrawnuruodo#4895 said:

I would be happy to support Total World War (focused on WW2 which is a more tactical diverse and interesting setting), a different kind of game made by a different team within CA that does not interfere with our Total War whose logo is, quite aptly, a horseman with a sword in hand, because that one kind of soldier has been present in every Total War game released till date.

So...like, Relic and CoH? lol

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Commisar#2307 said:

So...like, Relic and CoH? lol

No, those are an entirely different style of strategy games Commisar.

The Victorian era, let alone WW1 or WW2 will NOT work within the TW games.

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

Commisar#2307 said:

So...like, Relic and CoH? lol

No, those are an entirely different style of strategy games Commisar.

The Victorian era, let alone WW1 or WW2 will NOT work within the TW games.

I don't know if you are trolling here but a Victoria game has already worked and before you say 'but FotS is a game connected to Shogun 2' neither I or anyone else in existence sees that as a reasonable argument against. A game exists that uses Victorian tech, it works, it's popular and generally considered a good game - the end.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

I don't know if you are trolling here but a Victoria game has already worked and before you say 'but FotS is a game connected to Shogun 2' neither I or anyone else in existence sees that as a reasonable argument against. A game exists that uses Victorian tech, it works, it's popular and generally considered a good game - the end.

You kind of answered it yourself.

It's not it's own game, not truly anyway.

FotS was really just an expansion for Shogun 2 that used some animations and such from Napoleon and gave a basic feeling of being in the Victorian period rather than actually being its own standalone Victorian era TW game.

And my point is just that when most people think of the wars of the Victorian era, it's usually the later ones, such as the Anglo Zulu War and Franco Prussian War and not as much the earlier ones.

And while the tech can somewhat work within the TW formula, that doesn't mean it would objectively the best fit for it either.

I just think that the Victorian era should at best be left to be a Saga title rather than a full blown TW game, as it'd be far too easy for the game's options for tactics to devolve into nothing but brainless gun spamming.

mitthrawnuruodo#4895

Commisar#2307 said:

mitthrawnuruodo#4895 said:

I would be happy to support Total World War (focused on WW2 which is a more tactical diverse and interesting setting), a different kind of game made by a different team within CA that does not interfere with our Total War whose logo is, quite aptly, a horseman with a sword in hand, because that one kind of soldier has been present in every Total War game released till date.

So...like, Relic and CoH? lol

Not at all. It should share some of the DNA of Total War, i.e. it would have multiple levels of strategy, such as Theatre > Campaign > Battle. Officers with a proper military hierarchy will be featured heavily. There would be no nonsensical base-building and birthing of units in the middle of a battle. Somethings that will be different - such as battles would last for multiple turns. there will be cover-based combat, greater focus on upgrading equipment of existing units over recruiting new ones.

Probably a mix of Gary Grigsby War in the East / West (with the addition of division commanders) and Graviteam Tactics.

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

davedave1124#4773 said:

I don't know if you are trolling here but a Victoria game has already worked and before you say 'but FotS is a game connected to Shogun 2' neither I or anyone else in existence sees that as a reasonable argument against. A game exists that uses Victorian tech, it works, it's popular and generally considered a good game - the end.

You kind of answered it yourself.

It's not it's own game, not truly anyway.

FotS was really just an expansion for Shogun 2 that used some animations and such from Napoleon and gave a basic feeling of being in the Victorian period rather than actually being its own standalone Victorian era TW game.

And my point is just that when most people think of the wars of the Victorian era, it's usually the later ones, such as the Anglo Zulu War and Franco Prussian War and not as much the earlier ones.

And while the tech can somewhat work within the TW formula, that doesn't mean it would objectively the best fit for it either.

I just think that the Victorian era should at best be left to be a Saga title rather than a full blown TW game, as it'd be far too easy for the game's options for tactics to devolve into nothing but brainless gun spamming.

No, I said the fact it’s created using the S2 engine has 0 implication on whether a Victorian game can work.

There’s a Victorian TW game which has its own unique engine
There’s a Victorian TW game that uses the S2 engine

They are both Victorian TW games and prove that using Victorian tech and narrative works fine.

If CA decide to create a Victorian game it will work fine and it will be enjoyed just as much as any other. If you personally don’t like that it’s a shame but of little consequence to the entire player-ship.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

There’s a Victorian TW game which has its own unique engine
There’s a Victorian TW game that uses the S2 engine

They are both Victorian TW games and prove that using Victorian tech and narrative works fine.

*sigh*
Except it's not dave.

I never said it couldn't work within a TW engine or any of that, but rather just pointing out that the wars that the period are known for are at such a point that it would do more harm than good for the tactical toolbox of a TW game.

And seriously dude.

Just get over the the fact that FotS wasn't truly its own full game but an expansion for Shogun 2 that was later sold separately and not truly a standalone TW game.

It's not truly it's own TW game, just accept that fact and move on.

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

davedave1124#4773 said:

There’s a Victorian TW game which has its own unique engine
There’s a Victorian TW game that uses the S2 engine

They are both Victorian TW games and prove that using Victorian tech and narrative works fine.

*sigh*
Except it's not dave.

I never said it couldn't work within a TW engine or any of that, but rather just pointing out that the wars that the period are known for are at such a point that it would do more harm than good for the tactical toolbox of a TW game.

And seriously dude.

Just get over the the fact that FotS wasn't truly its own full game but an expansion for Shogun 2 that was later sold separately and not truly a standalone TW game.

It's not truly it's own TW game, just accept that fact and move on.

You never make any sense. Did FotS do more harm than good? No.

Also, using meaningless language really doesn't help your cause, standalone? You could originally buy FotS without Shogun 2 and whether you get some definition of standalone, same engine or whatever, a game from the Victorian period exists and it was popular, so, your idea a Victorian game is problematic is such plain nonsense.

Jam#4399

How do you think WW will work?

200 soldiers running side by side doing formation?

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

You never make any sense. Did FotS do more harm than good? No.

Also, using meaningless language really doesn't help your cause, standalone? You could originally buy FotS without Shogun 2 and whether you get some definition of standalone, same engine or whatever, a game from the Victorian period exists and it was popular, so, your idea a Victorian game is problematic is such plain nonsense.

Well, as someone who actually played like 2,700 hours on Shogun 2, I can say that that's not entirely true.

If FotS had actually been its own stand alone game separate from Shogun 2, it wouldn't have been so bad, but the vast majority of us got it as a DLC expansion for Shogun 2, so it kind of did unbalance things in a bad way.


And no dave, just because you don't like my valid point about FotS not truly being its own game doesn't make it meaningless or any of that nonsense.

And you can't try to pretend that the wars of Victorian era aren't more associated with the later wars than the earlier ones.

Because when most people think of wars of that took place during the Victorian era, they tend to think of the Franco Prussian War, the Anglo Zulu War, or even the Crimean War.

I just think it's kind of funny that you try to disregard those facts because they undermine your arguments.

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

davedave1124#4773 said:

You never make any sense. Did FotS do more harm than good? No.

Also, using meaningless language really doesn't help your cause, standalone? You could originally buy FotS without Shogun 2 and whether you get some definition of standalone, same engine or whatever, a game from the Victorian period exists and it was popular, so, your idea a Victorian game is problematic is such plain nonsense.

Well, as someone who actually played like 2,700 hours on Shogun 2, I can say that that's not entirely true.

If FotS had actually been its own stand alone game separate from Shogun 2, it wouldn't have been so bad, but the vast majority of us got it as a DLC expansion for Shogun 2, so it kind of did unbalance things in a bad way.


And no dave, just because you don't like my valid point about FotS not truly being its own game doesn't make it meaningless or any of that nonsense.

And you can't try to pretend that the wars of Victorian era aren't more associated with the later wars than the earlier ones.

Because when most people think of wars of that took place during the Victorian era, they tend to think of the Franco Prussian War, the Anglo Zulu War, or even the Crimean War.

I just think it's kind of funny that you try to disregard those facts because they undermine your arguments.

Well, as someone who has been playing TW from Shogun 1 I can say that is true (seriously, are you going back to 'I've played this many hours so my opinion holds more weight than everyone else?').

It didn't unbalance the game at all as seen in the positive reviews and the lack of people complaining about the balance.

Your argument is worthless, it doesn't flow logically in anyway.

Here's my argument:

Premise 1. If a working Victorian period TW game exists that is popular; then another working Victorian period game can exist and be popular.
Premise 2. A Victorian TW game does exist and is popular.
Conclusion. Another Victorian game can exist and be popular.

It's a simple argument and the premises cannot be proven wrong by 'It's not a standalone game'. You have to define the difference between a 'standalone game' and a 'non standalone game' and explain why one works and one doesn't, something you have never managed and never will manage to do. So, there's my argument, I'll start yours for you and see how you do:

Premise 1. *insert here*
Premise 2. *insert here*
Conclusion. Victoria TW cannot work well, or work at all.

To all of those points I'd simply say.. so what? I don't care what wars are popular (or what wars you think are popular) as I don't see an issue with implementing any of them. You do have a strange habit of just listing things without any argument or context and then writing 'and that's my argument' as if it has some meaning.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

Well here's the thing you don't want to admit to dave.

FotS wasn't truly a standalone Victorian TW game.

You can tell yourself that it was a million times, but that doesn't mean it's true.


At best it was an expansion for an existing game that was sold separately, even though like 90-95% of us all got it as DLC for Shogun 2.

Not to mention how it was completely focused on a single relatively small war that just so happened to be within the Victorian era, but you try to act like it's showing the entirety of the era.

So your premises and such don't really mean jack at the end of the day.

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

davedave1124#4773 said:

Well here's the thing you don't want to admit to dave.

FotS wasn't truly a standalone Victorian TW game.

You can tell yourself that it was a million times, but that doesn't mean it's true.


At best it was an expansion for an existing game that was sold separately, even though like 90-95% of us all got it as DLC for Shogun 2.

Not to mention how it was completely focused on a single relatively small war that just so happened to be within the Victorian era, but you try to act like it's showing the entirety of the era.

So your premises and such don't really mean jack at the end of the day.

No, you’re missing the point, it was a stand-alone game, you could buy it without Shogun 2 and even if you didn’t what difference does it make? For crying out loud pay attention.

Nope nothing here makes those premises untrue.. sorry, argument still stands.

Premise 1. If a working Victorian period TW game exists that is popular; then another working Victorian period game can exist and be popular.
Premise 2. A Victorian TW game does exist and is popular.
Conclusion. Another Victorian game can exist and be popular.

But but it’s a standalone, but but 95% bought it while owning S2, but but it was only one war.. none of this changes the fact that Victorian tech, warfare, narrative etc worked using the TW format.

Have you actually got an argument that makes sense?

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

Have you actually got an argument that makes sense?

Well you don't, so why should I take your "argument" seriously?


What you're trying to do is pretty much trying to say that if something like Caesar in Gaul for Rome 2 was sold separately, that it would be a complete representation of ancient times, which it wouldn't be.

Because seriously dave.

Get the hell over this throwing a petulant tantrum just because someone points out a truth you don't like.

FotS was NOT truly its own stand alone game, as like I pointed out and you tried to ignore, the vast majority of us bought it as DLC for Shogun 2, so trying to act like it was truly its own game is BS and you know it.

But I know that you're just going to come back with the petulant "Your argument is worthless" crap because you can't accept anyone else being right about something.