TW as fps?

[Christian Strand]

I was playing BFBC2 and got this idea.. if there has to be a ww2 tw, then the only gameplay that would work for it would be fps-style imo.

Imagine you play on a campaign map and then you zoom into a fight, it will be an fps game, kinda like the Battlefield-series? You take flags and hold them for a certain amount of time, and you win that region on the campaign map?

[Akar]

No

[HansDuet]

Would not be a total war.

We have enough WW2 games anyway, take your pick.

[Nosjack]

I seriously hope to God that TW doesn't move to a FPS, or even a MMO.
I love the style they have now, anything else and I'll stop buying their games.

[TheEschaton]

what would be kind of fun would be a TW game where you control the battlefield from the eyes of the general and his troops. It would make SO many things more realistic:

1. The general dies, and you are kicked out of the battle, leaving your units to fend for themselves with AI control
2. The general can't see what's over the hill, so you can use terrain to hide your troops.
3. The general will have a detailed view of only the part of the battle that he can see - the positions of your units beyond his LOS would show up on the minimap (and only enemy units that have been sighted as well), and be controlled from the minimap. This would lead to the general having to move about quite a bit, just as really happened back in the day.
4. Formation-setting would be far more important in this mode, to ensure that your units would stay together the way you wanted them while ordering them blindly around the battlefield.
5. Smoke and dust from troops shooting and moving would obscure your genera's vision more than the bird's eye in the sky view - leading to the chaos of battle that is described in so many war stories from the day.

All in all, the game would be much much more realistic. The question is, would that be awesome or lame. I'm going with awesome, since there's no other game out there like this.

[shikaka]

what would be kind of fun would be a TW game where you control the battlefield from the eyes of the general and his troops. It would make SO many things more realistic:
...
All in all, the game would be much much more realistic. The question is, would that be awesome or lame. I'm going with awesome, since there's no other game out there like this.

This would not make it realistic, but annoying!
In real life, there are thinking personnel under your command.
In real life, your men don't require a kick in the ass with a shout to actually fight _back_, to fire their guns, to reform-recharge (cavalry), etc.


edit:
This could work maybe, but for a different game, this would not be total war.
What is quite important is that in all games like this (from Battlefield to Mount and Blade) all tries at a proper AI failed. It is very hard to create an AI which is not a joke in single player FPS.

Imagine you play on a campaign map and then you zoom into a fight, it will be an fps game, kinda like the Battlefield-series? You take flags and hold them for a certain amount of time, and you win that region on the campaign map?

I hope not!

[Killerbee]

what would be kind of fun would be a TW game where you control the battlefield from the eyes of the general and his troops. It would make SO many things more realistic:

2. The general can't see what's over the hill, so you can use terrain to hide your troops.
3. The general will have a detailed view of only the part of the battle that he can see - the positions of your units beyond his LOS would show up on the minimap (and only enemy units that have been sighted as well), and be controlled from the minimap. This would lead to the general having to move about quite a bit, just as really happened back in the day.
4. Formation-setting would be far more important in this mode, to ensure that your units would stay together the way you wanted them while ordering them blindly around the battlefield.
5. Smoke and dust from troops shooting and moving would obscure your genera's vision more than the bird's eye in the sky view - leading to the chaos of battle that is described in so many war stories from the day.

All in all, the game would be much much more realistic. The question is, would that be awesome or lame. I'm going with awesome, since there's no other game out there like this.

Wow. This is almost as awesome as the already present general-cam !

[Plant]

I would go for lame. Why go for more complexity, when the vast majority of people are too unintelligent to use the current simple system. Why make it more complicated than of seeing all except those in certain areas which can possibly hide units? Why make it so when the general dies, you are no longer playing a game, but watching a video? Why make the game even more defensive? Why have to order blindly and make it a game of chance instead of skill?

[Nosjack]

I would go for lame. Why go for more complexity, when the vast majority of people are too unintelligent to use the current simple system. Why make it more complicated than of seeing all except those in certain areas which can possibly hide units? Why make it so when the general dies, you are no longer playing a game, but watching a video? Why make the game even more defensive? Why have to order blindly and make it a game of chance instead of skill?

Agreed, not to mention how would you command units in the chaos of battle? You would have to set out a strategy and then sit back and let the units follow or not follow it.

[TheEschaton]

LOL at the complete lack of open-mindedness on display in this thread. The general camera is ridiculous and doesn't actually do most of what I was envisioning, so it's a false comparison that you're simply using to try to ridicule me.

As for those people who think the idea would be lame, just keep in mind that the enemy player is also handicapped in the same way. Maybe you could even jump to views from the lieutenants in the various units, too - which yes, would be just like the present unit cam in the game (which only makes it more likely that such a mode would be possible to mod, IMHO).

And after all, there are those of us who are open-minded enough to see that such a game wouldn't be lame, it would just require a new way of thinking about tactics and strategy. The RTS genre is nothing but top-down views, with the rare exception like Ground Control. I guess all of you want just more of the same old, same old - nothing too scary for the kids, eh? I'll take innovation over that any day.

Looking back on what I said though - it would be bad to take you out of the battle entirely if the general was lost. Perhaps instead you get penalized with a loss of 10 seconds of control while the next-higher up officer assumes command. After all, you have to protect the general!

[goro]

when i was playing rome total war when i was very younger i always dreamed of being able to be able to play online and one was the commanders giving objectives to soldiers go there attack that get back etc and the others in the game would select a unit to join and play as a soldier in it.too complex and difficult to do.only with small scale units it would be somehow possible i think

[SlartyBartfast]

I'm with you, Eschaton. I dream of the day CA includes a first person general camera in their games. It would be the ultimate in realism. You would have to be very careful where you place yourself on the battlefield. Height would achieve an even greater importance, because only from a height can you see what's going on.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The only way this could work would be that when you feel that you can safely leave your amry by itself, you can become the general and fight in the midst of battle. But then the general should not take up a unit slot, and should not be able to command while fighting.

[SlartyBartfast]

The only way this could work would be that when you feel that you can safely leave your amry by itself, you can become the general and fight in the midst of battle. But then the general should not take up a unit slot, and should not be able to command while fighting.

A hardcore general will always be in fps general cam; he'll deploy that way, he'll give orders that way, he'll fight that way, and he'll have a good view of the dirt as he dies that way. A general can still give orders even in the midst of a melee, as confused as those orders may be. And he will have to disengage from melee to once again view the battlefield and give clear orders.
To control his army, he'll have to move around a lot so he can see what is going on. I'm sure this is what the good generals in history used to do. I believe Napoleon used to change his position regularly to view the battle; and when he didn't, such as at Borodino and Waterloo, the results were disastrous.
This is pretty much how I play the game already with the general cam in rtw and mtw2, except it's a gay third person view situated about two metres above and behind the general's head. It is, I believe, the way to extract the most realism from the game.

[Pharoah]

They could do somthing like in mount and blade but it will be effect the general and not the other units

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

That'd only work with voice command. And extremely sophisticated version at that. You'd have to be able to give commands like "left flank of infantry, take up the high ground by the farm, one unit hide in the cluster if trees", etc. Which will not be possible for many years to come.

[SlartyBartfast]

It works already. You turn off the unit cards -- which are gay anyway -- and commit the groupings of your units to memory; point and click and the orders are issued, just as if your lieutenants had waved the signal flags. An amount of delay, depending upon the unit's distance from the general and line of sight and so on, would be more realistic still. Of course these orders work most effectively when you can see the ground you are ordering your troops to move to, so the high ground is an imperative.
The only major difference in my proposal would be the first person camera and your ability to control your general's melee moves. These moves could be upgraded in accordance to his activities on the campaign map.
Perhaps in future a map screen might be available for larger scale battles, with drop down menus of commands for, say, divisions of troops. Click on the map and give an order, such as "hold the woods on the left." One can then adjust orders via the map and lieutenants, who are part of your battle entourage, during the course of battle; for example, "Advance from the woods on the left and engage."
No, I believe Total War is ready for an FPS general.

[empr guy]

i forsee both a bad implementation and then 9/10 the players crying themselves to sleep because they didn't understand what 'fps' general meant when they bought the game.

Anyway, i wonder what it would be like, having the general being under direct control and making decisions based on what you can see. Would be very hard of course, but an option for that while keeping the current versions wouldn't be bad. Of course, what the OP is suggesting would be awful.

[SlartyBartfast]

Yes, it would make a cool option; I'm not suggesting it should be the only camera in the game, for the reasons you stated: CA would probably implement it poorly (if their AI is anything to go by) and all the RTS-camera babies would cry their eyes out if they couldn't see the battlefield from their helicopters. Because all ancient military commanders had helicopters, didn't you know.

[empr guy]

the good ones had Zepplins, that way they could just walk around above the battle. Just make sure to keep out of range of flamming arrows....