Next TW: American Civil War?

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Unit variety isn't high on Ca's priority list. Shogun has basically same units in EVERY clan. Like one or two unique units top.
Faction cultures same as shogun not much diversity there so that isn't a problem.
Heraldry all states have their own flags just like all clans in shogun have theirs.
Large map: Entire North America continent??? Bigger than both Napoleon and Shogun campaign maps and with diverse climate of USA.

None of your concerns seem to be something CA value so I don't see the problem in making a TW: ACW.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like a Rome 2 or any other TW. But this seems like a logical step after FOTS. Or a Victorian game like many others suggested.

Samurai are inherently more interesting than line infantry

In ACW there would be two factions..you don't see a problem with that? Having each state as its own faction would be a horrible idea. I wouldn't mind it being a part of a Victorian game or as a DLC to one, but on its own it would be the first TW I won't buy. I don't think I'm alone on that one.

In any case I hope the next game is new IP all together, failing that Med 3.

[Normandymaster]

why CA would not be ambitious? they could do a tw game set in the 19th and implement the game mechanics tradition/modernity seen in fots in this game. if you add big rebellions like in empire (government change) you could have revolutions in 19th tw and even civil wars. you would not have exactly the Civil War but such wars in all modern countries. CA could even trick the game to make the acw nearly impossible to avoid.

[Gazz]

Hope not, I wants Victorian age!

[Noif de Bodemloze]

This must be the 6th thread on this topic...

I think there must be more than 6.

[Ragga]

I dig the idea... it does mirrow FoTS and would think it would be awesome to be a specific state; especially from the south, considering each southern state were in essence fighting for their own independence from the union to be it own country, but by chance, were joining other southern states to fight their individual cause - each state would have unique resources, a unique pool of units, and some states would still have European backing.

The only question that CA would have to address... and the most important one that may have problamatic issues is the concept of Slavery. Although most educated people know that the ACW was not initially faught for Slavery, a good portion of Americans still think it was... and thus, how would CA address this issue when in fact they completely denied its existance in ETW???

[Humble Warrior]

I dig the idea... it does mirrow FoTS and would think it would be awesome to be a specific state; especially from the south, considering each southern state were in essence fighting for their own independence from the union to be it own country, but by chance, were joining other southern states to fight their individual cause - each state would have unique resources, a unique pool of units, and some states would still have European backing.

The only question that CA would have to address... and the most important one that may have problamatic issues is the concept of Slavery. Although most educated people know that the ACW was not initially faught for Slavery, a good portion of Americans still think it was... and thus, how would CA address this issue when in fact they completely denied its existance in ETW???

Good point. CA are quite scared of controversial subjects so I reckon it won`t be ACW after all- Or it`ll be ACW that`ll just ignore the whole slavery issue like it never happened.

[Normandymaster]

if CA does 19th tw they can't go for a century. the campaign would be too long. even if they do one season power turn it would make a 400 turns campaign! tens of years before the time limit you would have conquered the whole planet! the more modern the game the shorter the period must be, with steamboats railroads, you must have at least one turn per month may be 2 like in shogun 2

[Normandymaster]

the real interesting tw game is when you go from one world to another, sail to steam for ex. that's why I proposed 1830-40 to 1880-90. these were the times where Europe and America really became modern and took the lead of the world. this period works in industry, science, military, even agriculture: this is the core of the Industrial Revolution

[GeneralMaximus]

I dig the idea... it does mirrow FoTS and would think it would be awesome to be a specific state; especially from the south, considering each southern state were in essence fighting for their own independence from the union to be it own country, but by chance, were joining other southern states to fight their individual cause - each state would have unique resources, a unique pool of units, and some states would still have European backing.

The only question that CA would have to address... and the most important one that may have problamatic issues is the concept of Slavery. Although most educated people know that the ACW was not initially faught for Slavery, a good portion of Americans still think it was... and thus, how would CA address this issue when in fact they completely denied its existance in ETW???

That is a very good point. I had almost forgot that they didn't have slavery in ETW. That certainly does complicate things but I'm sure CA could work around it in some way.

As someone mentioned before it would be another way to try and get more American players like they did with ETW's "Road to Independence".

I do agree with most that this might be best as some kind of expansion to, say a Victorian Era game. Overall I don't know I just feel that with the new stuff in FOTS I'm guessing the next game will be set in victorian era or ACW. But there are many pros and cons with making one like you all have mentioned. Will be interesting to see what they come up with

[The Juggernaut]

I'd really like them to see a Victoria: Total War, and have a "Wars of the Victorian Era" sort of thing, like Napoleon's Campaigns in NTW. Have a grand strategy world map like Empire, but then close theater environments for the Crimean War, the American Civil War, the Boer War, even the Russo-Japanese War. While you can start a Grand Campaign with the major factions, you can also get a lot more detailed with the theaters of war, lading up to WWI.

But as for a ACW Total War by itself, absolutely not. What, would you make each state a different faction? It works in Shogun, where individual warlords are jockeying for power, but I really don't see Georgia invading Alabama in 1860 while they prepare for Realm Divide (aka Ft. Sumter). While I think there would be enough factions for a campaign (Federals, Confederates, France, Britain, Mexico, Canada) I don't see it being enough for a full-fledged game.

[Sol Invictus]

Love studying the ACW but it would not make for a good title. Too limited in both focus and timespan. It could and certainly should factor into a Victoria TW though. There could be an event which triggers the chance for the ACW but there should also be a small chance to avoid it completely. If CA could pull off a Victoria TW spanning 1850-1890 with seasonal turns or 1850-1870 with monthly turns and including essentially the entire globe it would be potentially the crowning achievement in strategy gaming.

[Sir Sesshaku]

I'd rather have a S.XIX TW. With the ACW as DLC or expansion for those who care about it. Everybody wins like that.

[Sir Furlong]

Oh another one?

Honestly I can't see them doing a title singularly on ACW. I could see them doing, as several people have said, side campaigns as they did in Empire and Napoleon involving wars that they want to get more detail to, such as ACW and perhaps a few others. I really feel like we need another Grand Total War game like Empire, I fine Shogun 2 and Napoleon to be too scripted in a way.

[Matamoros]

American Civil War.
No, God, please no.
A bunch of north americans dressed in blue and other bunch dressed in gray bayonetting each other.
Market target: north american gamers.
How exciting.

Now please CA could you be so kind and bring us Renaissance? or Medieval 3? or Rome 2?

[Methoz]

I hope - NO!! Why yes? I don't have interest play with 2-4 factions...

[Re Fagiano]

for me yes. I think acw is a good warfare with innovations and appeal . Why 2-4 nations? maybe all country involved in acw like ny massachus virginia ecc can count as a indipendent country like in fots.

If well developed i believe that is an awesome scenario.

[Comrade_Rory]

Seriously? Another thread like this?

Some people seem to forget that there were far more wars in the 19th century than just the American Civil War. Infact, half the technological advances in the ACW were done 10 years earlier in the Crimean War... and with much much more "factions".
It's still too small a scope, it only works in Japan because it was still a series of independent clans choosing sides.

What we really need is a Victoria: Total War. 1835-1900, a grand campaign covering as large a map as CA is willing to go and then a bunch of smaller campaigns with the Crimean War, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian war and that would probably be fine as it is, though there are lots of others.

[marceror]

I rather doubt the civil war will ever be a total war game. The slavery issue is still extremely controversial from a American civil rights perspective, and brings up a lot of heated emotions in the US. And only 2 factions, as has been mentioned.

That said, a native American revolt faction could be cool. Screw you Americans... we're taking back what is ours! A dinosaur faction could be cool... I mean maybe a few survived and choose the ACW to show themselves. Or perhaps Hitler's grandfather could lead an invasion force against the US - not historical, but I bet he was thinking about doing it. A few faction ideas. I can think of a few others, but they are even less PC than those I mentioned. Could be a game. I wouldn't mind seeing us arrogant Americans get our asses handed to us... in a game.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

You.... You people don't know much about the ACW, do you?


I don't even think hafl of you know how big North America is!


How come Europe, and even Japan can get it's own game, but America cannot? The American Civil war was an extremely interesting historical event, whether or not you were American.

Yes, I would prefer a Victoria Total War, which includes all of these things, on a huge, world map. But, IF CA decided to do an ACW Total War, I would buy it. Especially if it was done like FotS, where all the states were their own factions. As for those people saying "I doubt Louisisana would invade Texas, etc." Well, I doubt Satsuma domain would have personally controled half of Japan, but it sure as hell does in my game.


Me, I wasn't interested in Shogun at all. I thought "Japan? Why would I want to play some tiny clan in Japan, and fight a war that literally only matters to the Japanese?" buy, I bought the game anyway, and learned about it. And now, the Sengoku period is one of the most interesting periods I know about.

Napoleon? Nope. I thought I would have been bored out of my mind, fighting in some European wars that were an ocean away. But, then, I started learning about the time period, and became interested.


The point Im trying to make is, you people who don't know anything about the ACW are just dismissing it out of turn. Hell, I've never even HEARD of the Crimean War, but Im not against them doing a Total War game about it. Because Im certain that no matter what war they choose, ever, it will be interesting. (Except the Anglo-Zanzibar War. That would be boring.)

[Comrade_Rory]

Well... i know quite alot about the American Civil war
I enjoy American history almost as much as European history (i like Chinese history too but it's very hard to get your head around).

I would buy an American Civil War Total War but i just think, if they're going to do a focused game... there's better wars in the 19th century.
A Victorian one is still my preferred choice all round though.