Napoleon III :Total War after the first :-)

Hello,

Just a joke: will there be a "Napoleon III: Total War" after Napoleon: Total War? Though the "second" Napoleon was not as famous and came later, it would be fun...And weapond during the mid 1800's had greatly increased too....

For those who wonder who is Napoleon 3, just check Wikipedia....Napoleon III was the Napoleon's nephew...

In French: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napol%C3%A9on_III (because the Napoleon's were French...)

Well I'm no good at graphic editing but it could look something like this...(in picture: Napoleon III , the first French President...)

http://www.mediafire.com/file/mmz2dm...lashScreen.jpg

Napoleon II was the duc de Reichstadt (Reichstadt's duke)....

Why not, there are a lot of interesting conflicts like the Crimean War, the Italian independence war, the Mexico war, the Franco-Prussian war etc. which were rarely or never visiting by the game industry.

Sadly, CA hasn't the right concept for the modern warfares.

I don't get it, you want to have a game based on Franz Xaver Winterhalter (Napoléon III)?

I would look forward to playing such a game if for no other reason than to see if i cant reverse that embarrassment to French arms that was the Franco-Prussian war and return some Dignity to the title of Napoleon...

I would absolutely love to see a Napoleon III: TW. I guess CA could also call it Bismark: TW, Molke: TW, or Victoria: TW. I don't care what they call it but having a game covering the Wars of German/Italian Unification, Crimean War, and the assorted colonial wars would be excellent imo.

A 19th century TW would be amazing I think - would have all the good points (and potential good points) of ETW multiplied by about 5; and cos there would also have been 2 TWs (1 TW and a glorified expansion, don't think they'll call that 2 titles in their development cycle and make a new engine) made with the same engine, it'd be refined - without any (many ) of the bad points of ETW.

1800-1870 wouldn't really cause any difficulties that WW1 would, would be easily achievable, cover an extremely important part of history and have potential for depth economically, politically, technologically and militarily.

I'd rather it cover 1840-1870 with monthly turns. CA might think that is to many turns so I could even go with 1860-1870 at 2 week turns.

lol, a Victorian Era Total War would be cool, with colonial expansionism, Opium Wars, Boers, Crimean War, etc. That would be cool.

Don't be silly, it's either Rome 2 or the US Civil War

Originally Posted by Gezoes

Don't be silly, it's either Rome 2 or the US Civil War

If it is CW then I would never buy that game!!!!!!
I want Suleiman: Total War (Renaissance: TW)!!!!!

Originally Posted by Gezoes

Don't be silly, it's either Rome 2 or the US Civil War

Fick the US Civil war. Rome not so much but I rather be able to play as Mexico fighting against the titans that France, Spain and the US were.

Originally Posted by Gezoes

Don't be silly, it's either Rome 2 or the US Civil War

I'm quite sure they won't make a Civil War TW, only 2 mayor factions is far to few for a TW game.

I hope for a return to melee based combat, considering it's something CA can do well. Gunpowder warfare has never really worked out well in the series. That said, I'd love to see CA do a Pike and Shot era game (1499-1699). Imagine it... Conquisatdors in the Americas, Suleiman the Magnificent and the Ottoman Wars, Henry VIII, The Spanish Armada, The Reformation, German Peasants War, Elizabeth I, English Civil War, Thirty Years War, Holy Roman Empire, etc.

Perosnally i'd also like to see a return to Asia with a game centered on the Medieval period. We could have Genghis Khan and the Mongols, The Chinese Warring Kingdoms, Samurai in Japan, Vietnamese/ Cambodian warfare with elephants, etc.

But what I'd most like to see is a return to the Ancient/Classical period. We could have a game centered on the bronze age (Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Mycenaeans etc) although that would have a limited scope. Other than that I'd like to see a game centered around Greece and Rome's classical age, a Rome 2: Total War.

Good idea but you'd have to factor rail-transport into the equation as it was very important to the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war in particular. The big mistake of the French in 1870-1 was that unlike the Prussians, they didn't commandeer the rail-network for the military, meaning it took longer to mobilise than the Prussians. They also didn't exploit an early machine-gun (mitrailleuse) they had developed. Where it was used (Battle of Gravelotte), it had a devastating impact on Prussian infantry. But overall, too few soldiers knew how to use it.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

In a few instances where the Reffye mitrailleuses were put to good use, they showed that they could have a significant impact. Captain Barbe's mitrailleuse battery at the Battle of Gravelotte devastated massed Prussian infantry when they had quickly found the range on their targets, contributing to the exceptionally high Prussian death toll in that battle. Other examples of effective mitrailleuse fire have also been described for the battles of Saint Privat and Mars-la-Tour. For the most part, however, mitrailleuses proved ineffective. It was concluded after the war that Chassepot rifle fire had caused a far greater number of Prussian casualties than the Reffye mitrailleuses. However, about 100,000 Chassepot rifles were engaged in combat in contrast with the less than 200 Reffye mitrailleuses used in battle at any given time.

But 'Napoleon the Small' (as Victor Hugo mockingly called him) did leave an important mark on history in several respects. For a start, he (with Sardinian help) drove the Austrians out of Italy, which was an important step towards Italian identity and unification. The French also performed more successfully than others in the Crimean War. The rebuilding of Paris - such as the Champs Elyseé - is also testament to his historical importance. Yes - he deserves a game/mod.

I think if CA covered the Franco/Prussian war, then either unit sizes, or army sizes would have to be bigger, as the French modern rifle and the Prussian artill would cause alot of casualties - quickly!

For a Victorian era total war game, a shorter campaign with 2 week turns would ofc be better for war, in terms of logistics, attrition, etc... which a 6 month turn time couldn't work with; but if the campaign lasts something like 10 years it does a lot to reduce the impact of long term economy in the game. In other words the whole game would take a very large movement towards being completely military based and a large movement away from long term infrastructural development and reforms - why spend 10 years on reforms when by the time they're finished the game ends?

I think the campaign for any Victoria era game should be atleast 40 years, with 1 month turn times it would suit both the military and long term economy, neither one perfectly ofc, but both to a degree taht would be acceptable... it would be a better balance. Obviously for me, since I value economic development in strategy games just as much as military affairs, the longer the campaign the better for me, so long as it doesn't hinder the military side of the game too much, though obviously others may have it the other way 'round.

So in other words: yeah 1800-1870 might be a bit much, but I'd want atleast 1820-1860, which would only be 480 turns @ 1 month/ turn... or if not the same time period in 2 month or seasonal turns for 240 or 160 turns respectively over the course of the campaign.. though I think with the latter 2 the movement times etc would ahve to be made quite unrealistic to be viable, which is why I'd prefer the first.

A TW that covers 1526-1700: cool!!!!!! But 1st, a 1830-1900 one

Originally Posted by RO Citizen

A TW that covers 1526-1700: cool!!!!!! But 1st, a 1830-1900 one

I meant like 1526-1566/1600!!!!

I'd rather have Homer (era 800bc). If not i'd setle for the minoan age. What i want to say is that melee combat is the main focus of the game and to enjoy it early epoch of human history should be represented.

Interactive economic, technological and diplomatic parts of the game > an emphasis on melee combat I think. All 3 can be achieved better in a more modern based game, though it would be nice to go back to ancient times once we move on to the next engine, once we've finished looking at more modern times. A TW with railways + attrition + large amounts of technological development + a large map encompassing much or preferably all of the world = the perfect TW game ^^


... so long as it's moddable and covers a decent period of time with decent turn times
... without bugs
... etc