View Poll Results: Would you buy World war II total war?

Voters
107. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    41 38.32%
  • No

    66 61.68%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 96

Thread: World war II Total war

  1. #61
    Hastatas Prior
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    627

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    How can you find WW2 uninteresting?

    Im just curious.
    Watching countless documentaries, movies and playing countless WW2 games in the previous decade pretty much diminished all curiosity I had for that war.

  2. #62
    DukeofBrunswick's Avatar Shisai
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toowoomba, Australia
    Posts
    347

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Australia: A land of bronzed bodies and wonderful football.

    This signature is a solemn promise that no new Call of Duty game shall be purchased by me until a new engine is produced for the game.

  3. #63
    ♘Top Hat Zebra's Avatar Equites Cohortales
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Places
    Posts
    4,773

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Quote Originally Posted by cevap View Post
    Watching countless documentaries, movies and playing countless WW2 games in the previous decade pretty much diminished all curiosity I had for that war.

    I still find it incredible. I mean, the sheer NUMBERS of the war amaze me.

    And, like I said, a TW ww2 game would be incredible, if it could be done right.

    That's a big IF, though.

  4. #64
    Lazarus's Avatar Equites
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,755

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    That's the thing, a TW WW2 can't be done right. Part of TW is these big blocks of man all marching in formation. By that point though warfare was broken up and scattered about, ducking and weaving in and out of buildings, scattered about fields, that sort of thing. The only time anyone was ever in any semblance of the old formation would be when they're dug in to the trenches.

    Also, I agree. The war has lost its... glow. There's no more "new war" smell about it. Its saturated the market. People got so bored that CoD went to the modern era. I would wager that if you gathered all of the seconds that anyone has played any kind of WW2 game, it would last longer than the actual war.
    Last edited by Lazarus; April 23, 2012 at 04:40 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  5. #65
    Ikko-Ikki
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Please god no. Nothing after 1900ish.

  6. #66
    -Concrete-'s Avatar Centurio
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    431

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Unfair question for the poll, and it still loses.

    If the question was 'should they make a ww2 total war' the poll would be lean against TS much more.

  7. #67
    Sukauto
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    no: no tw after 1900. I hope for a company of heroes 2 or a reboot of the close combat series though

  8. #68
    ♘Top Hat Zebra's Avatar Equites Cohortales
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Places
    Posts
    4,773

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Do I think they should try it? No.

    If they were up to doing it, and they did it right, would I buy it? Yes.


    I think the best we would get, is if some OTHER company did a WW2 game, in the style of Total War. That way, CA could get some competition, and everyone who wants a modern "Total War" could get it, while those who don't want one don't have to bother.

  9. #69
    agunter999's Avatar Princeps
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK or not????
    Posts
    1,224

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    it would be great
    why would you not want it

  10. #70
    Conrad of Montferrat's Avatar Kabe difendā
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Van Diemen's Land
    Posts
    42

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    It couldn't be done for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that to even make a cursory glance at realism in the campaign map you'd end up with such an unreasonable level of complexity that the player would be overwhelmed almost entirely - like a lot of people are with games like Hearts of Iron III - or you'd end up having to abstract that complexity down to something more manageable in gameplay but with far less depth and realism.

    The other reason it can't be done is because the battles (forgetting how you'd model city-wide battles that lasted months) would need either an ungodly amount of micromanagement, or AI that would need to be so complex and so intelligent at modelling individual soldiers acting in mobile squads that it would require years of R&D and an ungodly amount of CPU power. If you've ever tried running a game of ARMA 2 with hundreds of NPCs running around, you'll know that it obliterates most modern computers. A WW2 Total War game would have to achieve a similar level of AI complexity over tens of thousands of units, and that's just not feasible.

    Both of these problems means that either a proper WW2 TW is impossible, or would be so dumbed down and unrealistic that it would be totally unsatisfying to play.
    The Frankish marquis, the ruler of Tyre, and the greatest devil of all the Franks, Conrad of Montferrat — God damn him! — was killed!

  11. #71
    ♘Top Hat Zebra's Avatar Equites Cohortales
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Places
    Posts
    4,773

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad of Montferrat View Post
    It couldn't be done for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that to even make a cursory glance at realism in the campaign map you'd end up with such an unreasonable level of complexity that the player would be overwhelmed almost entirely - like a lot of people are with games like Hearts of Iron III - or you'd end up having to abstract that complexity down to something more manageable in gameplay but with far less depth and realism.

    The other reason it can't be done is because the battles (forgetting how you'd model city-wide battles that lasted months) would need either an ungodly amount of micromanagement, or AI that would need to be so complex and so intelligent at modelling individual soldiers acting in mobile squads that it would require years of R&D and an ungodly amount of CPU power. If you've ever tried running a game of ARMA 2 with hundreds of NPCs running around, you'll know that it obliterates most modern computers. A WW2 Total War game would have to achieve a similar level of AI complexity over tens of thousands of units, and that's just not feasible.

    Both of these problems means that either a proper WW2 TW is impossible, or would be so dumbed down and unrealistic that it would be totally unsatisfying to play.

    Now, I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that it won't be done, but not for these reasons.


    Mostly because these exact same reasons apply for ALL Total War games. And it's never prevented them from doing a game before.

  12. #72
    Razor's Avatar Licenced to kill
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Deventer, The Netherlands
    Posts
    3,595

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    A WW2 Total War could be the Hallmark of the WW2 genre combining grand strategy, 3d battles into an experience I've never seen before in a ww2 game. Any comparison to another WW2 game would be off because ww2 games are either shooters or merely rts, that don't have a campaign similar to Total War games. And please don't even compare Warleaders: Clash of Nations to the Total War series. That game is a disaster, but not because it's a WW2 game but because it's a poor imitation of Total War gameplay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad of Montferrat View Post
    It couldn't be done for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that to even make a cursory glance at realism in the campaign map you'd end up with such an unreasonable level of complexity that the player would be overwhelmed almost entirely - like a lot of people are with games like Hearts of Iron III - or you'd end up having to abstract that complexity down to something more manageable in gameplay but with far less depth and realism.

    The other reason it can't be done is because the battles (forgetting how you'd model city-wide battles that lasted months) would need either an ungodly amount of micromanagement, or AI that would need to be so complex and so intelligent at modelling individual soldiers acting in mobile squads that it would require years of R&D and an ungodly amount of CPU power. If you've ever tried running a game of ARMA 2 with hundreds of NPCs running around, you'll know that it obliterates most modern computers. A WW2 Total War game would have to achieve a similar level of AI complexity over tens of thousands of units, and that's just not feasible.

    Both of these problems means that either a proper WW2 TW is impossible, or would be so dumbed down and unrealistic that it would be totally unsatisfying to play.
    1)I can't remember other Total War games being overly complex while their time period certainly deserved more detail. And Total War games IMO are already rather simplistic and lack depth. Personally I'd prefer a bit more depth and a bit more rigidity similar to Paradox games.

    2) Company of Heroes and Order or War (to a lesser extent) were games that pulled it off quite nicely. I could imagine having a WW2 Total War game where battles aren't about killing/routing every enemy unit on the field, but where battles are about controlling sectors that generate 'credits' that allow you to 'buy' units as reinforcements. The type of units you can 'buy' as reinforcements would depend on the type of division you're fighting with. The battle could be won if all sectors are controlled for more than x amount of time or whatever.
    The gameplay type of Company of Heroes also allows the battle to take place on a smaller scale, i.e. on a battlefield that doesn't have all units deployed like in current Total War games instead of having a huuuuuge battlefield that requires two whole divisions or more (2x (or more) ca. 10.000 men on the field divided into squads/platoons/special weapons teams) all at once.
    Additionally an option would be to get rid of having all unit cards displayed on the user HUD, and only display those that you have selected, while an option to enlarge the radar map to full screen would allow you to see where all your units are on the battlefield and what type they are etc. (again similar to Company of Heroes)

    Units would need to be a bit smarter and assertive (taking cover when under fire), and not stand there like 'brainless zombies'.
    In short a WW2 Total War is just as possible as any other Total War game that has been released.


    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Now, I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that it won't be done, but not for these reasons.


    Mostly because these exact same reasons apply for ALL Total War games. And it's never prevented them from doing a game before.
    Indeed
    Last edited by Razor; April 29, 2012 at 09:49 AM.
    - A late Roman mod for M2TW: Kingdoms -

    A BAT CREDIT CARD!!? (1)
    A BAT CREDIT CARD!!? (2)

    Globalization: making someone else's problem your problem

  13. #73
    Conrad of Montferrat's Avatar Kabe difendā
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Van Diemen's Land
    Posts
    42

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Now, I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that it won't be done, but not for these reasons.


    Mostly because these exact same reasons apply for ALL Total War games. And it's never prevented them from doing a game before.
    I'd say it applies much less to previous titles considering that they're based on periods where the "norm" for warfare were large set-piece battles involving large regiment-sized contiguous units whereas World War 2 involved far more autonomy and mobility at the platoon/squad level. There's really nothing wrong with modelling AI on the regiment level for a Napoleonic game, but 20th century combat requires a much further devolution that just isn't feasible just to capture a TW game's level of combat realism which, I admit, isn't much.

    Having massive squares/mobs of infantry and tanks fighting each other would be stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Razor View Post
    1)I can't remember other Total War games being overly complex while their time period certainly deserved more detail.
    I will concede this, but I don't think the lack of complexity is as striking in a pre-19th century game as it is in a 20th century game. The lack of logistics has always bothered me in the franchise, but in a Roman or Medieval context it's not something you have to worry hugely about modelling since armies mostly lived off their surroundings. This changes drastically when you move into the 20th century, when a single infantryman needs a squad of rear echelon troops to keep him fighting. Having the player deal with this logistical nightmare would be boring and not very fun to any but the most passionate history buffs if modelled with any realism, and almost pointless in its inaccuracy if abstracted to the level of most campaign features of the franchise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Razor View Post
    2) Company of Heroes and Order or War (to a lesser extent) were games that pulled it off quite nicely.
    Neither game, in my opinion, models World War 2 combat with an appropriate level of authenticity. I do agree that resource/territory-grabbing is a more effective model for 20th century combat than just "kill/route all the enemies", but it still isn't great. Really, I think we need a Total War game that can correctly model the effects of strategic decision making (such as capturing resources on the campaign map) on the tactical level. A meeting engagement between forces that ends in a withdrawal may not have involved combat in the slightest, yet when you click the "withdraw" or "surrender" button in most Total War titles your army randomly runs in the opposite direction - there's no actual ability to control a withdrawal. Every retreat is a rout.

    Sorry, I'm seguing right off topic here.

    Essentially, my point is that adhering to the same (perhaps low) level of realism they have achieved in previous titles would be much more difficult if they chose to model 20th century warfare. So difficult, in my opinion, that I don't think they should bother and, instead, stick to periods of warfare where set-piece battles are easier to model and more fun to play.

    Here's hoping for Rome 2, Medieval China or maybe the 30 Years War.
    Last edited by Conrad of Montferrat; April 30, 2012 at 12:33 AM.
    The Frankish marquis, the ruler of Tyre, and the greatest devil of all the Franks, Conrad of Montferrat — God damn him! — was killed!

  14. #74
    Razor's Avatar Licenced to kill
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Deventer, The Netherlands
    Posts
    3,595

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad of Montferrat View Post
    I will concede this, but I don't think the lack of complexity is as striking in a pre-19th century game as it is in a 20th century game. The lack of logistics has always bothered me in the franchise, but in a Roman or Medieval context it's not something you have to worry hugely about modelling since armies mostly lived off their surroundings. This changes drastically when you move into the 20th century, when a single infantryman needs a squad of rear echelon troops to keep him fighting. Having the player deal with this logistical nightmare would be boring and not very fun to any but the most passionate history buffs if modelled with any realism, and almost pointless in its inaccuracy if abstracted to the level of most campaign features of the franchise.
    Well, the fact that there's no difference in gameplay between managing large Roman legions (requiring supplies and organization) and small Germanic raiding parties (not requiring supplies and organization) in fact does start to bother me once you know the implications (and the missed opportunities in gameplay). But in general you're right. It would be odd to have a Total War game with the current mechanics in a modern setting. But to be honest it already felt odd with Empire Total War and even Medieval 2 Total War. All you could do was conquer a region and it got added to your realm. M2TW and ETW lacked a clear war and diplomacy system one could find in Paradox games, where a war has a start and an end and is fought with a clear war goal (or more goals) in mind instead of pure randomness in TW games and conquest (read: occupation) of enemy territory doesn't mean adding it to your realm, but instead adds to your war score that allows the player to achieve his war goals once the score is high enough.

    Neither game, in my opinion, models World War 2 combat with an appropriate level of authenticity. I do agree that resource/territory-grabbing is a more effective model for 20th century combat than just "kill/route all the enemies", but it still isn't great. Really, I think we need a Total War game that can correctly model the effects of strategic decision making (such as capturing resources on the campaign map) on the tactical level. A meeting engagement between forces that ends in a withdrawal may not have involved combat in the slightest, yet when you click the "withdraw" or "surrender" button in most Total War titles your army randomly runs in the opposite direction - there's no actual ability to control a withdrawal. Every retreat is a rout.
    I completely agree. In a WW2 setting I'd love to see tanks moving slowly when fuel is scarce, units firing at a slower rate when ammunition supplies are low, soldiers fighting worse when food supplies are low etc. That would be quite an experience and also adds an extra dimension to the campaign: if you do badly on the campaign your units will do badly during battle. mismanagement on the campaign would then have consequences in battle.

    For 3d battles to either kill or rout all enemy units or to capture and hold all sectors is perfectly fine the way I see it. There has to be an abstraction one way or another. In a TW game where all units are already present on the battlefield killing or routing the all enemy units is the logical choice. However, for a 20th century game to start the battle not with all your units on the battlefield but with just a number of units where more units enter the battle as reinforcements, the capturing of sectors of the battle map does seem to be the best solution.

    I.e. it could all work just fine in a Total War setting, under the condition that the gameplay mechanics are modified to suit the modern setting. And that's the whole issue. Should the series stick to the same old, or should it go for variety.

    And that would touch another discussion. There are loads of people that will argue that it wouldn't be Total War anymore. Then what makes Total War Total War? Is it the battles with loads of men on the screen at once using line formations? Or is it the interactivity between campaign map and 3D battles and the experience that what you do in one has effect on the other and the possibility to "change history"?
    Is it both? Or is it something completely different? Or... or... (?)

    Sorry, I'm seguing right off topic here.

    Essentially, my point is that adhering to the same (perhaps low) level of realism they have achieved in previous titles would be much more difficult if they chose to model 20th century warfare. So difficult, in my opinion, that I don't think they should bother and, instead, stick to periods of warfare where set-piece battles are easier to model and more fun to play.

    Here's hoping for Rome 2, Medieval China or maybe the 30 Years War.
    I think CA would do good to change gameplay mechanics accordingly to the period in which the game is set. Sometimes the changes are minor, sometimes a setting requires more change. And even Rome 2, Medieval China and the 30 Years War all require new gameplay mechanics to do them justice. Compare sieges and city defenses of Roman times to medieval China and the 17th century.

    Obviously I'm on the side of variety in both periods and gameplay mechanics that suit the period. And although I'd love a Rome 2 and another Medieval and Empire, I'd certainly love to see a WW1 and WW2 TW. All this under the condition that the gameplay mechanics suit the period in question. Otherwise it makes no sense.
    - A late Roman mod for M2TW: Kingdoms -

    A BAT CREDIT CARD!!? (1)
    A BAT CREDIT CARD!!? (2)

    Globalization: making someone else's problem your problem

  15. #75
    MIGLOVER's Avatar Yari-hei
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Syria
    Posts
    124

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    How about they make a WW2 game but it's battles would look like MOW? i am actually against having a WW2 total war because as i said in other topics having a WW2 game means the use of atomic bombs by major nations wich means it will be a desaster if it was used against someone who moded his game in order to play a minor nation and overwhealming for a player playing with a major nation not forgeting that WW2 had that Nazism and facist things ..... :S
    Last edited by MIGLOVER; April 30, 2012 at 09:48 AM.

  16. #76
    leviath's Avatar Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,548

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    War Leaders : Clash of Nations was TW like set in WWII, I had some very good campaigns with this game despite the billions of bugs ruining the game and it not working on Win 7.
    " You insolent, useless son of a peasant dog! How dare you show your sword in his presence!"
    French commentaries for TW and RTS:http://www.youtube.com/user/leviath40

  17. #77
    MIGLOVER's Avatar Yari-hei
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Syria
    Posts
    124

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Thats wierd it worked on my WIN7 tho i don't know how i did it make it work in fact i pathced with a Portogues patch along with an English patch and it worked almost fine LOL

  18. #78
    Captain Arrrgh!'s Avatar I'z in yer grass
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Skull Island
    Posts
    6,397

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    A big attraction of the TW series since Medieval 1 is the family members, and the various traits and hangers on they accumulate. They can participate in battles and expire in glory or infamy.

    Empire due to it's time frame departed slighlty from an era where leading family members rode into the messy thick of things, but you still had colorful historical personages, with interesting backgrounds, enganging the enemy on the field.

    WWII Total War would have bloated windbags like Churchill, or insane psychopaths like Stalin as your faction leader. I've no desire to play as these loathsome tubs of lard, with their retinue they accumulte such things as 'Extra Thick Cigar' - 1 penalty to personality, or 'Big Honkin' Moustache' + 1 to dread.

    Also, WWII has been done done done to death. God, it's so boring. A WWII game pops up on Steam at least once a month. And no, CA would not be able to handle building a WWII game, and even if they could they'd withhold factions, units and equipment for DLC sales, which they'll offer through some stupid app game.
    They'll also just recycle reload animations for a German MP-40 and a Soviet SVT, then claim that they just couldn't spare enough time to create new animations.

    Oh, and of course, four months after releasing the game they'll utterly destroy the graphics without notifying anyone in order to make the vanilla mesh with their lazily tossed out 'expandalone'.

  19. #79
    Markas's Avatar Child of Nihil.
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    10,822

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    Hopelessly saturated market, so no.
    'When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. '

    -Emile Cammaerts' book The Laughing Prophets (1937)

    Under the patronage of Nihil. So there.

  20. #80
    Colonel Dax's Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The Second Circle of Hell
    Posts
    768

    Default Re: World war II Total war

    This is actually a difficult question.

    Would I buy it simply because it is a TW game? Absolutely not.
    Would I buy it if CA can somehow, miraculously make it work? Yes, I suppose I would.
    I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.


Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •