1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Ideas for Total War games after Empire.

Discussion in 'Total War' started by LightSpectra, Jan 4, 2009.

  1. GoodSarmatian

    GoodSarmatian Temporary Configuration

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany, The Horned City
    The term is usually associated with this.


    Link to video.
     
  2. Maniacal

    Maniacal the green Napoleon

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,756
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    Not too mention that "Total War" is a good cover for bad AI :p
     
  3. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    8,080
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    What I am suggesting is that Britain: Total War and it's expansions would cover the the period of 480AD to 1066AD. Therefore the vanilla game could cover a period before the Vikings arrived and the expansions would be when the Vikings arrived and an expansion involving the Norman invasion.
     
  4. salty mud

    salty mud Ey-up

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,590
    Location:
    God's Own County
    I think an Arabia: Total War might be good also. A map going from the Levant to India, as far north as Crimea and south as Ethiopia, so all of Arabia could be in. Time frame could be any time. It could be Medieval to involve the Crusades, it could be Roman time to simulate the Selucid Empire, Ptomely, Pontus, with a possible scripted Roman invasion after so many turns, it could even be World War I era, a la Lawrence of Arabia, where the Arabs fight for their freedom against the Ottoman Empire. Or; make the main game with one era, and the others can be covered with expansion packs.
     
  5. Jos Ballenbak

    Jos Ballenbak Zombiehunter, duh.....

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,279
    Location:
    Utrecht
    you should try broken crescent
     
  6. Dachs

    Dachs Intelligence Officer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    31,520
    Location:
    Rubinelle
    That doesn't mean that the description of it there is a useful or meaningful one.
     
  7. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    8,080
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    I know I'm probably going to be shunned from this thread for saying this, but I would like to see CA do another Total Warrior game. I actually loved Spartan: Total Warrior because it provided a new perspective on massive ancient battles and the departure from historical accuracy was actually refreshing and allowed for greater flexibility in the story and gameplay.
     
  8. Maniacal

    Maniacal the green Napoleon

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,756
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    It's been done, it's called many names, God of War is one of them, just take a browse at your local console store for the others.
     
  9. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    8,080
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    God of War is awesome, but it wasn't quite the same as Spartan: TW. To me Spartan: TW was like experiencing a Total War game through the eyes of a foot soldier with some mythology thrown in for good measure.
     
  10. Jos Ballenbak

    Jos Ballenbak Zombiehunter, duh.....

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,279
    Location:
    Utrecht
    I would like a proper Medieval Total War, with historical depth that you would find in a Paradox game.
     
  11. RickFGS

    RickFGS Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,203
    Location:
    Lisboa, Portugal
    Rome Total War II with complete naval battles, more city micromanagement, more map detail, more goodies and resources, much better and intelligent AI, tech research, tech trading, possibility to create new colonies/settlements.

    Specialized units such as: trade ships, caravans, manpower reserves, engineer and so on...

    More city view interface, possibility to design city defenses upon walls completion, possibility to add extra features to defenses in conquered/native cities, such as extra towers, extra gates, extra wall section and siege equipement for defense (scorpions, onagers, ballistas, whatever).

    Better game engine, more effort in game speed and playability, and not so much in graphics, since Sega takeover, the gameplay was never quite the same as in the original Rome Total War...it doesn´t flow smothly anymore...
     
  12. Dachs

    Dachs Intelligence Officer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    31,520
    Location:
    Rubinelle
    They really haven't changed gameplay much at all, and when they have, it's generally been for the better (e.g. improved controls for organizing battle lines and orienting units and groups of units).
     
  13. bombshoo

    bombshoo Never mind...

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    5,154
    Something like this would be very cool. I could have a ball designing cities and playing out battles on them.
     
  14. That nerdy kid

    That nerdy kid Vampire Slayer Slayer

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    428
    Location:
    Standing next to Waldo
    I would not mind a mid-20th century game, or a remake of RTW with a fix to elephants.
     
  15. west india man

    west india man Immortal

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    8,862
    Location:
    Brazil
    It's not just the elephants that need fixing in RTW.

    Anyway, a lot of the issues in RTW have been covered in mods such as EB and RoR.
     
  16. SteveTR

    SteveTR Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    I'd like to see Colonization: Total War. It would focus on Africa and/or east Asia in 19th century. You'd have railroads, machine guns etc. It works great in Total War: Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai, so it should work here, too.
     
  17. Domen

    Domen Misico dux Vandalorum

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,088
    Location:
    Doggerland
    We lack a Total War game spanning from 1531 (M2TW ends in 1530) to 1700 (ETW starts in 1701).

    We also lack a Total War game covering pre-Alexander the Great times of Antiquity.

    Or maybe something non-European but different than Shogun Total War III.
     
  18. Owen Glyndwr

    Owen Glyndwr La Femme Moderne

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    13,800
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    So...Poland. Got it! :p
     
  19. Dachs

    Dachs Intelligence Officer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    31,520
    Location:
    Rubinelle
    Poland-Lithuania was only even vaguely hegemonic and militarily protagonistic for slightly over half of that period.

    Still, that was as good as it got.
     
  20. Domen

    Domen Misico dux Vandalorum

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,088
    Location:
    Doggerland
    It all started in the 1640s with failure of the planned war against the Ottomans - the main goal of which was to conquer the Crimean Khanate. Also a coup d'etat was planned (with use of forces gathered for this war, after its successful end), the goal of which was to limit the extent of noble democracy and privileges. The main actors of that game were king Wladyslaw IV Vasa (he was by far the best of Polish kings in 17th century), hetman Stanislaw Koniecpolski and chancellor Jerzy Ossolinski. Koniecpolski died in 1646, king Wladyslaw's unfortunate death - due to an overdose of laxatives - was in 1648. Ossolinski died in 1650. So things didn't go well. In 1648 a major Cossack Uprising under Bohdan Khmelnytsky started - after the death of their favourite king (he was very respected by Cossacks, because he made extensive use of Cossack soldiers in his military campaigns, giving them the opportunity to fight and get rich - something they liked most) and the subsequent final failure of the planned grand expedition against the Ottomans. The moment of weakness and chaos of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was then exploited by nearly all of her neighbours- and so the series of disastrous wars continued until 1667. In 1655 Sweden backstabbed PLC from behind. Actually Charles X Gustav was popular among Polish nobility, many of whom would like to see him on the Polish throne instead of John Casimir - who was generally considered as an inept king. This is why so many Lithuanians and Poles betrayed to the Swedish camp. They came back only when they realized what was the Swedish policy in captured territories. PLC in the end came out on top from all of these wars in years 1648 - 1667, but the state's economy was in ruins. Material losses were great.

    It was not the crisis of Polish-Lithuanian way of warfare, however, which caused these problems.

    For example initial defeats against Sweden in 1655 were caused by fact that PLC's army which was mobilized to face the Swedes in 1655 was much weaker than PLC's armies which fought against Sweden in previous wars - those in years 1601 - 1629. It was strong on paper when it comes to numbers, but quality and composition of this army in 1655 was much worse than quality of armies which fought in previous wars vs Sweden.

    There was also problem with espirit de corps - many citizens would like to see Charles X on the Polish throne rather than John Casimir.

    And also commanders of Polish-Lithuanian armies at that time were not as skilled as during previous wars against Sweden. One of the best commanders of PLC's armies at that time - Janusz Radziwill (who for example won against Russians and Cossacks in the battle of Szklow on 12 August 1654, where his forces were outnumbered) betrayed to the Swedish side, signing the Treaty of Kiejdany with Charles X Gustav. Regarding composition:

    We should compare the composition and quality of army which faced the Swedish invasion in 1655 especially with the composition and quality of Polish army mobilized for war against Sweden in 1635 (this war in the end did not take place - that's why some historians call it "armed demonstration against Sweden" - but it didn't take place because Sweden agreed to sign the favourable for Poland Treaty of Stuhmsdorf on 12 September 1635).

    ==============================================

    Regular Polish (Crown) army mobilized for planned war against Sweden in 1635:

    - 4060 hussars (17%)
    - 4890 "cossack" cavalry (20%)
    - 620 reiters & 1900 dragoons (10%)
    - 12,700 infantry (53%)

    Total regulars: 24,170 regular Crown army. Add to this 3630 regular soldiers of the quarter army and from Lithuania, as well as ca. 7,000 registery Cossacks. In total around 35,000 soldiers - including 28,000 regulars and 7.000 registery Cossacks.

    And this was the perfect army composition for war against Sweden, based on experiences from previous wars.

    =======================================

    By comparison in 1655 Poland deployed:

    Against Sweden:

    Regular army (in brackets - % of total regulars):

    - 700 hussars (7%)
    - 6340 other cavalry (light & medium) and dragoons (62%)
    - 3150 infantry (31%)

    In total 10,200. As you can see, not only it was a small force of regulars, but also had not enough infantry (just 31%) and heavy cavalry (just 7%).

    Add to this:

    - 5300 voivode and private forces (1650 cavalry and 3650 infantry)

    - 4300 levy peasant infantry (so called chosen infantry or łan's infantry)

    - 32,000 nobles from Levée en masse

    Total of 51,800 - but 70% of this were troops of very low combat value (32,000 + 4300) and further 10% (5300) troops of often dubious loyalty.

    Of those 32,000 noble levies many would like to see Charles X on the Polish-Lithuanian throne more than John Casimir.

    13,000 of those 32,000 noble levies (so over 40%) surrendered at Ujscie on 25 July 1655 without a single shot.

    Against Russian-Cossack alliance:

    Regular Crown army - 9400
    Regular Lithuanian army - ca. 10,000 (partially betrayed to the Swedes after the Treaty of Kiejdany)
    Łan's infantry - 300
    Noble levies - 4000
    And also 15,000 Crimean Tatars, who previously had been supporting Cossacks but now fought on the Polish side vs Russo-Cossack alliance.

    As you can see, actually much more (19,400 compared to 10,200) regulars fought vs the Russian-Cossack alliance than vs Sweden.

    But Russian-Cossack army operating against PLC in 1655 was massive - much bigger than Swedish army.

    ===============================

    And Swedish forces at the beginning were 34,000 regular army (12,950 cavalry, 1200 dragoons and 19,800 infantry), shortly later they grew to 42,000 regulars at the start of August, then to 55,000 regulars - and by the end of the year (1655) they amounted 68,000 regulars, despite already large losses.

    These are just Swedish regulars. Add to this all other forces - Swedish allies and Lithuanians and Poles who joined Swedish side.
     

Share This Page