I WOULD LOVE WW2 TOTAL WAR ......... next after ROME 2 PLEASE WW2 TOTAL WAR PLEASE!!!
Yes
No
I WOULD LOVE WW2 TOTAL WAR ......... next after ROME 2 PLEASE WW2 TOTAL WAR PLEASE!!!
Yes, ww2 would be interesting for a tw game. To acheive it though, CA would need to completely redo battle mechanics, to allow for tanks, motorised infantry, air strikes and so on. The ai would need alot of work too, to make good use of all the new goodies. A large campaign map, probably larger than that of etw, would be needed too, as is is WORLD war 2. I think if ca pulled this off well, then it would do very well for itself. I am personally very interested in the ww2 genre, but havent played many ww2 games. The only ww2 strategy i have is heart of irons 3, which doesnt impress me as it takes too long, is a pain to play, and has no battle simulation aside from a number, it feels like a first year games development student made it in their spare time, in my opinion anyway. Total war's level of detail, graphics, and game mechanics should be able to make it the best ww2 stategy around. However, i doubt CA will actually make it. They have already shown they like to stick with what they know (shogun, shogun 2, medieval, medieval 2, rome, rome 2). I cant see an empire 2 happening yet, so i think we may just get ww1 total war, though i doubt that too. Maybe a persia total war is more likely.
I dont doubt World War 2 would be a intersting time for a total war game, i really dont doubt it. The problem is that it simply would not work without the CA sacrificing what makes total war games great, large scale organized battles. World war 2 was simply to big, to confusing and to unorginzed to be a logical step for the CA. I would, however, support a Total War: Africa, that would focus on the europeans colonization of Africa during the 19th century. I also would not mind a Total War: World War 1, but i would prefer the African one over it.
"Veni vidi vici" - Julius Caesar
Nope. If I'm in the mood to play WW2 strategy games them I'll play something like Company of Heroes or Men of War.
nop, its really hard with things like blitz and long stretchet lines of defence like the atlantic wal, and esspecially the holercaust, it just makes it impossible to make a realistic strategy game
If they reduce the scale to something along the lines of Close Combat and focus on company to battalion level with some other support available, and redo basic mechanics to allow more detailed representation it might just work. Though they would have to ditch the Total War name in that case. Call it something unimaginative Total Combat : [insert some theatre\operation here]. Or maybe take some lessons from old Combat Missions to limited degree and increase the size of maps to accommodate.
That being said I suspect it will be snowball's chance in hell before that would happen, and should it happen and the scale is upped I suspect cluster**** until proven otherwise.
It could be really cool if you could use cover and the enemy aI used cover in a similar fashion to FOTS historical campaign.
Head Scout: You've got three days to earn a badge.
Peter:Three days? That's tomorrow! We gotta get going!
Hell no..
Given how much the community seems to hate paying for DLCs no, they won't make a Total War Game covering the 20th century.
The scale of the project requires years of development with a steady stream of revenue.
Option 1: Pay To Play - Monthly Cost
Option 2: Free To Play - Constant DLCs
To do it justice it's important to point out that we're going to need Japan to be as big as it is in Shogun 2, using some sort of regions and provinces system ala Rome but for the whole planet, preferably in some sort of digital sphere rather than a flat projection. So Japan would be the 8 Regions with like 100 provinces and players would be like this is "IMPOSSIBRU!"
Last edited by Col. Tartleton; July 16, 2013 at 08:33 PM.
The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
The search for intelligent life continues...
I think Total War cannot go further than the First World War.
And there are still plenty of times not shown, as the early Middle Ages, the time of Ancient Egypt and Sumer
The description Last of the Romans (Ultimus Romanorum) has historically been given to any man thought to embody the values of Ancient Roman civilization —values which, by implication, became extinct on his death. It has been used to describe a number of individuals.
☧Flavius Belisarius ☧ (505?–565), one of the greatest generals of the Byzantine Empire and one of the most acclaimed generals in history. He was also the only Byzantine general to be granted a Roman Triumph.
I don't think Total War could progress much beyond the American Civil war, myself. Even the Crimean war would be problematic. WWI and beyond are hopeless, because then you have fully automatic weapons, air-combat, submarine warfare, mines, trenches, tunnels, barbed wire, poison gas etc. all of which contribute to change how war is fought entirely. You don't have blocks of men who move with a single aim: are you supposed to control armies, corps, divisions, brigades, platoons, squads or individual men? The smallest unit of several men is a squad, which can be anywhere from 3-10 soldiers - each of whom have specific, individual tasks. There is no formation fighting, which is what the TW engine is designed for. A WWI or WWII game, therefore, is either a strategy- or a tactical game - not both. And even on a tactical level, the best games are strategical in their approach: Panzer General, for example, an excellent turn-based strategy game on a tactical level. It's not just the scale of the units which must be taken into consideration, but the scope of the war itself: let's say you are England. In a single turn you might expect to fight a couple of land battles in Africa, defend a convoy in the Atlantic, fight an aerial battle over Britain and engage the Japanese in several battles on land and at sea in the Far East. This is no longer fun, it's a tedium. In a modern warfare game, you either make the big decisions on a strategic level or you make the small decisions on a tactical level - the scope is much too large to do everything.
I don't think WWII would be workable as a total war game as we know it. The style doesn't work. World War II wasn't big armies marching around and then meeting in combat. The fronts were huge and very fluid. Frankly, if you wanted anything resembling historical accuracy, you would have to do away with tactical battle completely. At which point you have a HoI clone.
WW2 total war like has allready been created few years ago. War leaders : clash of the nations http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-WARL/wa...ash-of-nations
"En amour comme à la guerre, pour se connaître il faut se voir de prés."
Napoleon Ier
Actually you are right. The weak link of a WW2 Total War game would be that you'd have to fight more than one battle every turn. But is that really a problem that can't be overcome? You could still auto-resolve if you don't want to actually fight the battle and pick the ones you think are fun and/or important.
It's true that Total War would make use of a different battle mechanic. I've always imagined something like Company of Heroes, but on a bigger scale and less micro-management/babysitting of units (i.e. no more buttons saying fire panzerfaust/use sticky bomb/throw grenade) in specific situations like when fighting a tank or infiltrating a house or bunker. The several resources are gone and there's only one remaining: manpower that you can generate by conquering sectors/regions on the battle map. With these manpower points you can 'buy' more men from your army and bring them in as off-map reinforcements to the battle. The types of units you can bring in as reinforcements depend on the type(s) and the make-up of the division(s) that you are fighting with. Off-map support like bombardment or artillery barrage depend on the make-up of your army and/or the location of special artillery or airplanes on the campaign map.
A maximum time for battle can be set so that when the timer has reached zero and ends in a draw, the battle would end and continue later on during the next turn. Something like that...
Not that game again... from what I've seen it wasn't that good. Quite frankly I thought it sucked big time.
Sengoku: Total War (a Shogun mod for M2TW) - Work In Progress
Late Roman Era Campaign Map for M2TW
Late Roman Units for M2TW
Globalization: making someone else's problem your problem
Actually you are right. The weak link of a WW2 Total War game would be that you'd have to fight more than one battle every turn. But is that really a problem that can't be overcome? You could still auto-resolve if you don't want to actually fight the battle and pick the ones you think are fun and/or important.
It's true that Total War would make use of a different battle mechanic. I've always imagined something like Company of Heroes, but on a bigger scale and less micro-management/babysitting of units (i.e. no more buttons saying fire panzerfaust/use sticky bomb/throw grenade) in specific situations like when fighting a tank or infiltrating a house or bunker. The several resources are gone and there's only one remaining: manpower that you can generate by conquering sectors/regions on the battle map. With these manpower points you can 'buy' more men from your army and bring them in as off-map reinforcements to the battle. The types of units you can bring in as reinforcements depend on the type(s) and the make-up of the division(s) that you are fighting with. Off-map support like bombardment or artillery barrage depend on the make-up of your army and/or the location of special artillery or airplanes on the campaign map.
A maximum time for battle can be set so that when the timer has reached zero and ends in a draw, the battle would end and continue later on during the next turn. Something like that...
Not that game again... from what I've seen it wasn't that good. Quite frankly I thought it sucked big time.
Sengoku: Total War (a Shogun mod for M2TW) - Work In Progress
Late Roman Era Campaign Map for M2TW
Late Roman Units for M2TW
Globalization: making someone else's problem your problem