This destroys the possibility of fighting large-scale engagements.
Ideas for Total War games after Empire.
- Thread starter LightSpectra
- Start date
eduhum
Aahh the gold old days...
Mongol Total War(All Asia, and 3 China expansion packs(Shi Huangdi, 3 Kingdoms, Manchu)
Indian Total War (Arabic Invasion, Khmer Empire Exp. Packs )
Arabian Total War ( Khalifat Wars(Omeya and Abbassids) and Ottoman Empire Exp. Packs)
American Total War(Aztecs and Mayas)( Incan and Am. Indians Exp. Packs)
Shogun 2: Total War
Rome 2: Total War(Exp. Packs Mesopotamian Wars, Egiptian Empire, Greek Civilization, Celts Expansions)
Medieval 3: Total War (Exp. Packs Arabian Invasion, Easterlings)
Empire 2: Total War(Exp. Packs Columbus: Total War(American Discovering), Vasco da Gama: Total War(Asia and Oceania Discovering)
Not games for XIX-XXI centuries games, for the moment.
What do you think?
Indian Total War (Arabic Invasion, Khmer Empire Exp. Packs )
Arabian Total War ( Khalifat Wars(Omeya and Abbassids) and Ottoman Empire Exp. Packs)
American Total War(Aztecs and Mayas)( Incan and Am. Indians Exp. Packs)
Shogun 2: Total War
Rome 2: Total War(Exp. Packs Mesopotamian Wars, Egiptian Empire, Greek Civilization, Celts Expansions)
Medieval 3: Total War (Exp. Packs Arabian Invasion, Easterlings)
Empire 2: Total War(Exp. Packs Columbus: Total War(American Discovering), Vasco da Gama: Total War(Asia and Oceania Discovering)
Not games for XIX-XXI centuries games, for the moment.
What do you think?
As I already mentioned, there should be just one game to cover the discoveries and empires from 1450-1700 (Maybe beyond 1700?).
LightSpectra
me autem minui
A Total War game based on discovering things doesn't interest me.
I want my Thirty Years' War, Spanish Armada and Italian Wars.
I want my Thirty Years' War, Spanish Armada and Italian Wars.
Jos Ballenbak
Zombiehunter, duh.....
China Total war + Japan
hewhoknowsall
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 294
Basically a combination of all of your ideas and then some, although there would naturally come many problems with this.
The Thirty Years War would be an awesome expansion.
Who knows, maybe a small West Virginian village might appear in Thuringia
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Rome wasn't texture in a day?
I'm not sure that "Mongol" would be the best theme for that one. As much as removes the geographical frame away from a purely or Chinese or East Asian setting, it places a bit too much emphasis on a people who where disunified and, let's face it, rather irrelevent for most of their history, bar a brief, albeit significant imperial period. It could work as an expansion or expansion campagin, certainly, but you couldn't hang an entire game off that single concept the way they did (or at tried to) with Rome.
Warring States and Three Kingdoms are both interesting options, though. The former would allow a more narrowly focused, more strongly developed setting, as in Shogun, while the latter allows variety while maintaining a grounding on the similar-yet-distinct titular factions. That could allow them the sort of "core" experience they attempted in Rome, but with a more interseting game and a more variety than mere geography, and still gives the option of including Vietnam, Korea*, the Central Asian tribes, etc. as additional factions. It has the bonus of being an established setting, even in the West, through the numerous other games using that period (a few if which aren't actually made by Koei
).*(Well, their contemporary equivalents, at any rate. I'm not very well versed in Asian history.)
Elta
我不会把这种
Vietnam is important in Chinese history because they constantly invaded, got pushed out over and over again.
Same with Korea for China and Japan.
If there were to be a "Asia" total war I think it would be wise to have eras instead of a start and end date.
Same with Korea for China and Japan.
If there were to be a "Asia" total war I think it would be wise to have eras instead of a start and end date.
In a modern situation, they would never happen. Twenty cards still allows for - I'm thinking in British terms here - the entire parachute regiment (4 battalions, so 12 cards) with an entire armoured regiment (1 battalion - 6 cards) and 2 squadrons of helicopters or artilleryf or support. There's no way any engagement would be bigger than that, ever.
eduhum
Aahh the gold old days...
Well ignore that list, I've now a better now:
Hindu: Total War (Arabic Invasion, Khmer Empire Exp. Packs )
Arabian: Total War ( Khalifat Wars(Omeya and Abbassids) and Ottoman Empire Exp. Packs)
American: Total War(Aztecs and Mayas)( Incan and Am. Indians Exp. Packs)
Shogun 2: Total War (Korean Campaigns(Japan's defeated invation) and Mongol Invasion (Again)Exp. Packs.)
Rome 2: Total War(Exp. Packs Greek Civilization, Egiptian Empire)
Mysthic: Total War(Age of Iron or something)(Mesopotamian Worlds, Celtic Nomads
Medieval 3: Total War (Exp. Packs The Reconquista, Easterlings(Hungarians), Charlemagne, Belisarius(Byzantine Empire)(Perhaps too much Exp. Packs)
Empire 2: Total War(Exp. Packs Columbus: Total War(American Discovering), Vasco da Gama: Total War(Asia and Oceania Discovering)(Not just settle, conquer civilizations like Java or Mayan, etc...Like in MeTW 2:King. scenario)
Barbaric: Total War(Mongols(Exp. Packs European Conquests and Tamerlaan)
China: Total War( Exp. Packs Quin Si Huangdi, Korean Civilization, Manchu Invasion)
Persian: Total War(Xerxes armies Sassanid Empire Exp. Packs)
And maybe an African: Total War?
Now better(At least for me)
Not games for XIX-XXI centuries games, for the moment.
There's absolutely zero possibility of modeling modern combat in a Total War system so frankly I have no clue why you even mentioned it. It's totally irrelevant.
I still think that a world war 1 scenario could be done. Each army projects an area of control which the enemy cannot pass without providing the other army the chance to give battle. My unit sizes would work for that, or maybe scale up to one battalion per card (roughly 400 men to the card). Actually modern warfare has too many rules to work on a TW game, but the first world war didn't really.
First World War operations as a rule weren't fought on battalion scale either, except in the extremely narrow circumstances of certain actions that degenerated on the Western Front. Overwhelmingly, they might be likened to field battles of the American Civil War in nature, especially with the often-limited (everywhere but the Western Front for a few years, again) proclivity to partially entrench, but with much greater scope. You can't fight Tannenberg, Rawa Ruska, the Saar River, either of the Marne engagements, Caporetto, Gorlice-Tarnow, Kovel-Stanislav, or even the precious British Mons and Le Cateau on the scale of battalion maneuver.
And it still doesn't solve the problem of how armies of the early twentieth century, even more than the ones of the eighteenth and nineteenth, bear virtually no resemblance to the way they are characterized in TW games. It'd be a fundamental shift in the engine, and it wouldn't be a TW game. Stop talking out your ass.
And it still doesn't solve the problem of how armies of the early twentieth century, even more than the ones of the eighteenth and nineteenth, bear virtually no resemblance to the way they are characterized in TW games. It'd be a fundamental shift in the engine, and it wouldn't be a TW game. Stop talking out your ass.
civhelp121
Prince
I think World War II is doable. Unlike World War I, it wasn't a huge stalemate and had rather large engagements. The battle of stalingrad and things like the battle of the bulge come to mind. Of course changes would need to be made to represent the huge distances artillarly can cover and the speed of tanks, but I think the people who make total war games have shown themselves to be rather creative.
The cold war is more complicated. Either they could make drastic changes to fit the Cold War climate and style or they could make an imaginary Earth with no nukes so the superpowers could duke it out in hot wars. I think that a Cold War Total War would be very exciting because it would be both very different and basically a battle for the whole world, not just sections.
The cold war is more complicated. Either they could make drastic changes to fit the Cold War climate and style or they could make an imaginary Earth with no nukes so the superpowers could duke it out in hot wars. I think that a Cold War Total War would be very exciting because it would be both very different and basically a battle for the whole world, not just sections.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Company of Heroes already exists for WWII RTS games. I want my Thirty Years' War, dangit.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
For the last god damned time NO IT IS NOT! If you bothered to actually read anything in this thread you would have realized this have been SMILEY discussed to bloody death already!
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Oh give him a break. This Thread is 19 pages long, you can't expect everyone to go through every single page.
Though yeah. It's not possible to have MTW WWII. Too big. Too complicated. Just go back about 5-6 pages there are big explanations there.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Sorry I'm just sick and tired of it being repeated.
Actually this thread is getting kind of useless, its turning into the same arguments over and over again.
Actually this thread is getting kind of useless, its turning into the same arguments over and over again.
Similar threads
