Civilization: total war?

[Princeps]

Someone probably has thought of this before, but it would be awesome to combine total war and civilization series into a single game with features from both series. Basically, the game campaign would act out like a civilization game. You'd start with a single settler (or equivalent start up) and you'd establish cities, develop technologies, change govs/social policies, construct improvements and infrastructure, etc. You'd shape your civilization freely on a large randomly generated (or custom made) map and within a time span of thousands of years.

However, wars would be fought like they're fought in total war. Ground battles would be fought by you, controlling formations of hundreds of men like you do in total war. Technologies and new production facilities would open access to more advanced weapons. Starting at the stone ages, you'd command only pitifully small war bands, armed with spears, clubs and slings. Then you'd get access to chariots, cavalry, archers, and so on. Metal working techs and the like, would give you metal weapons and powerful advantages on the battlefield. And these weapons would improve massively as new technologies would be accessed. Eventually, as your population, technology, logistics and government improves, your armies would grow to encompass thousands of men, just on a single battlefield.

Also, don't forget naval warfare from Empire: TW (the only thing worth mentioning in that game). Naval warfare could be represented as well. Initially, naval warfare would mostly consist of galleys that would try to ram and board their rivals, and then it would develop to include gun bristling tallships (which would become meaner as the technologies grow) and at the very end, iron ships.

I've always sort of wondered what would really happen if a bronze age spearman faced down a rank of line infantry: obviously its not a mystery, but you never got to witness the massacre on the battlefield. In Civ:TW you could actually mow down your primitive rival civilization on the actual battlefield, not just through some animated figures superimposed on the map. So basically, you would have warfare and civilization from 4000 bc to 1850 AD in a single game. I don't think that modern warfare could be practically represented (and civ games rarely reach such advanced ages before becoming boring anyway). I think this game should stay within the realm of formation warfare, before the age of trenches and 700 RPM firearms. This would allow for the battles to be depicted on a single engine, with same battlefield maps. Modern battlefields are so vast, numbers so great and combat operatives so interconnected that a Total War type of formation fighting game format wouldn't work very well.

Anyway, add your input.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

it wouldn't work.

 

[Maniacal]

Yeah this has been discussed several times. It would be nice for the total war games to improve the economic and development side a bit and for the Civ games to get a good decent system.

 

[Princeps]

it wouldn't work.

I don't see any obvious reasons why it wouldn't.

 

[LightSpectra]

Because everything substantial in Civilization besides complex diplomacy is already in the Total War series, and the team that makes TW games isn't competent to making complex diplomacy. Or diplomacy that makes sense, really.

Government changes are technically in ETW and NTW, but it's done so ridiculously.

 

[Princeps]

Because everything substantial in Civilization besides complex diplomacy is already in the Total War series

Hardly. ETW campaign is not even remotely comparable to Civilization.

 

[Dachs]

Because everything substantial in Civilization besides complex diplomacy is already in the Total War series, and the team that makes TW games isn't competent to making complex diplomacy. Or diplomacy that makes sense, really.

Then again, the Civilization games - and the Paradox games, and so on - suck at diplomacy. It's just not quite as bad as the TW games.

 

[Hehehe]

Yes I've thought about this too. Aside from practical issues (such as licences), the scope of the game would be a problem. It's a huge work to make a TW game for a single era and one area, let alone the whole world and from the dawn of time to modern ages.

 

[Princeps]

let alone the whole world and from the dawn of time to modern ages.

I didn't say it should reach modern ages: that would be impractical because trench warfare and blitzkrieg style warfare would be very hard to depict in TW style. So the game should end at the twilight of formation warfare, i.e. from 4000 bc to Waterloo (or perhaps American civil war). All the periods within this time frame could be depicted in a single game. Of course, this is pure day dreaming, so obviously I wasn't even considering licences.

 

[LightSpectra]

Hardly. ETW campaign is not even remotely comparable to Civilization.

That's because they're different games. Despite this, they share almost every gameplay element, aside from real-time battles in not being in Civ and city-founding not being in TW.

 

[sophie]

I didn't say it should reach modern ages: that would be impractical because trench warfare and blitzkrieg style warfare would be very hard to depict in TW style. So the game should end at the twilight of formation warfare, i.e. from 4000 bc to Waterloo (or perhaps American civil war). All the periods within this time frame could be depicted in a single game. Of course, this is pure day dreaming, so obviously I wasn't even considering licences.

4000 BC featured formation warfare?

 

[Ajidica]

With the Sumerians, I think. I seem to recall depictions on a stele of what appear to be formed spearmen with four-wheeled chariots.

 

[Princeps]

4000 BC featured formation warfare?

Not necessarily tight squares of marching men -- but they'd still fight in manner that is depictable in TW style. Formation fighting with spears is almost as old as human civilization: using pointy sticks and tight groups of men to take over the rival village has always worked for someone.

 

[Atticus]

Yeah, I've thought about it too.

I thought the battle system could transform during the game, ie. there being a game series that gives slower history. Before ~Greek times battles would be just about bashing against each others, and possibly resolved automatically. Some technology advances would change also the battle style. The same would happen again when arriving to modern ages.

It's of course only a dream, since most people don't seem to be into looooong games. It would also require that you can't get too big too quickly.

 

[eduhum]

The perfect Civilization: Total War is a game
that is like total war with no provinces nor tiles, just a 3D screen where you can put cities anywhere and work anywhere, with all the elements of civilization and totalwar

 

[keneticpest]

If Firaxis and CA actually want too make this, that's fine with me. However, seeing as how maps in the TW campaign are based on the factors of the battlefield (weather, mountainous/flat, coastal/inland, etc.)battle maps would look the same if you're using a civ-style strat map.

 

[Qin Shi Huang]

I like how people always seem it is prudent to point out errors in the game they don't like so much and pretend their favourite is golden when dispute being similar they have some completely different concepts and it all boils down to which game you prefer and arguing won't get anyone anywhere. Both games have their strengths and weaknesses. My favourite I have to say has been total war (though shogun 2 is dull with the lack of variety in units and maps ) but I would love a cross between the 2 of them that's why I want a huuuuuge total war earth with all civs starting in tsl at 4000bc and they advance through time and unlock new units like in civ but they have the battles and stacking of units and sieges like total war that'd be awesome but wouldn't work really maybe in many years time when we all have super computers and they work out how to put in later empires online with the timeline (Britain rising at about 1066? When we became an proper influence etc) hope you understand what I mean

 

[Maniacal]

I like how people always seem it is prudent to point out errors in the game they don't like so much and pretend their favourite is golden when dispute being similar they have some completely different concepts and it all boils down to which game you prefer and arguing won't get anyone anywhere.

This pretty much describes every 'discussion' on the internet ever.

 

[Qin Shi Huang]

This pretty much describes every 'discussion' on the internet ever.

Yeah you have a damn big point if I may say so

 

[zmflavius]

Personally, I think that it would be the god of strategy games, but it also would be an insane monster of a game in terms of size, and insanely complex to boot.