WW1/Victorian Total War

[Theedge634]

I am posting this thread up not as a demand, but as ideas for a total war based in the victorian and world war 1 time period. There are many ideas and things to keep in mind for this.

We must remember that World War 1 was not all trench warfare, the eastern front was a mobile war, and as such not all wars will boil down to trench warfare.

Here are some of my thoughts and ideas, you are welcome to add anything, or dissaprove and state reasons why. I think it is VERY possible to come up with a very fun and innovative game in this time period, lets set it between 1870 or so and 1920-25.


1. Things to remember about Total War - One thing we must remember is that the total war series is at it's best most of the time when there are major open ended campaigns, and that things don't always have to play out exactly as they did in history. Afterall isn't that what historical battles are for, to get a chance to replay all the famous battles. Meaning world war 1 may still happen, may be different, may be smaller, shorter, longer, or bigger, or never exis at all, in a grand campaign.

3. Diplomacy - the first thing that would be different about a game in this time setting that would need to change would be diplomacy. Unlike previous installments Europe should not be seen as a sort of free for all with looser alliances and allies sometimes helping. The diplomacy would need an overhaul to an extent.

a. The first thing i would implement is; a mounting sort of diplomatic tension during the early 1900, where the nations that emerged from the earlier portion of the game begin to fear other powers. Thus when France is the most powerful nation going into 1905, other powerful nations will take notice and ally against this to balance the power of europe, preventing French expansion. Europe should bbe seen as a whole split in 2 or 3, when it comes to overall power of alliances.

b. i would incorporate a levels of alliances feature, with go to war options, that states if attacked by this or that country we will come to aid. It would take into account the power of europe as a whole. The games diplomacy always running off the idea that the european powers are never to overly powerful in 1 direction. Even if 3 major powers have been allied for a long period, then multiple smaller provinces and countries ally together with another major power to give balance.

b. if war breaks out between major powers, the other powers of europe shoulld be complelled to take sides, based upon previous relations and location. Also the main or major powers in the wars should attempt to recruit oher countries to their side with promises of land, riches, and the rewards of a victorious war.

overall the political situation and AI should reflect a much more delicate situation than games in the past have.

which brings us to

2. Expansion - expansion should still be had throughout other continents, especially in the early game. India and parts of africa and asia should be available to expand to, as well as small individual provinces in europe (that are not allied with major powers, or vassals of major powers). Expansion can still be had, but most should be done prior to 1905 or so, when things become more delicate.

The game should not be about "Dominating" and controlling the world with an empire in europe, as much as it should be about creating an alliance that can "dominate" and control europe and the world.

3. Economy - Without the massive expansion that we are soo used to how do we get money and expand our breadth of influence? I would say through industrial revolution, trade, and imperialism. Grab provinces and areas with good location for trade so that the may become a hub of trade interest in a region, develop and repress the area. Along with the booming of newfound industry money should be more about maximizing your current cities potential rather than building more farms and taking more area.

4. Warfare - the key here is being innovative and much different than previous titles of Total War. I'm not an exact history expert, and don't know exactly how warfare was fought prior to WW1 in the Victorian Era, but i trust that CA could find that out and replicate it.

a. How do we make the Inevetibility of trench warfare fun? - I would say by treating warfare no longer as a single battle on the screen, but treating warfare as a slower and more drawn out affair. War should feel like one of these colored maps, with your color slowly expanding and advancing, with certain
areas advancing faster or slower based upon the battles had.

Once trenches are dug they should act as fluid provincial borders, with strong points (acting as forts in a way) built along them. The key in this would be that you don't just build a trench and sit there. You have to build a very good trench to be able to do that. Always balancing having enough men across your line with building up forces across it for an offensive.

We have the gift of hindsight as well, and don't have to make the same stupid errors that were made early in the war, such as walking torward an opposing trench, and throwing hordes of men into no-mans land with little protection. Creeping barrages were used to great effect later in the war, and come up with other ideas;

Like shelling barbed wire to create paths for troops, or shelling certain expanses of no mans lad to create craters for advancing troops for cover. Machine guns are heavy, but a mobile machine gun team to set up a forward mount would be a great idea, using a crater, and returning machine gun fire at trench nests, there are alot of new and useful tactics you can come up with more modern tactics on a 100 year old field.

Often advances were made in the war, but due to disorganization, inept leadership, and horrible supply lines, they stalled soon after, if you do things the right way, a more effective way things can be very fun and rewarding.... Trench warfare should feel somewhat like seiges, the otherside surely has an advantage, but unless at a strong point, they have a smaller garrison, and if done correctly can be overwhelmed.... and once overwhelmed, you can use those flanks to supply attacks on strong points.


i'll post more later.... this is just my start... i have tons more of ideas, and innovations to different areas of gameplay.... and i think the graphics engine is in place for everything, with a little more land difformation added in... and some tweeks to the campaign maps.... of course a major overhaul to AI is needed, but we've needed that since ME2.

I just think it's time for CA to get creative again, the early games like Rome were game changers and revolutionary, and i still love all the games that they put out. But to be honest, other than some graphics updates and small things, the game hasn't changed or done anything groundbreaking. I'd like for it to be "creative" again and less formulaic.

[empr guy]

Im beggining to think that a TW game might work out for later periods if instead of each soldier being depicted on the battle map instead it was done at a regimental or brigade level or something (im not terribly familiar with unit sizes, im fairly certain it would need to be smaller then entire corps but mabe divisions or something)

that, of course would vex many of the new TW customers who have come solely for graphics and everyone who forgets about the terrible games when they see something pretty. Since we wont be able to play with the soldiers required without either buying new computers or haven bought super computers a few years ago I can only assume that either they will be depicted on a pityful scale, would require just about everyone to buy a new computer, or they actually inovate something with the battles like having them split up or something.

It will be intresting to see what they do with aircraft and navel battles if they go that route, I can only assume with current AI pathfinding and lack of player control over units that air battles will turn out more frustrating or comical then anything else.

I just think it's time for CA to get creative again, the early games like Rome were game changers and revolutionary, and i still love all the games that they put out. But to be honest, other than some graphics updates and small things, the game hasn't changed or done anything groundbreaking. I'd like for it to be "creative" again and less formulaic.

i agree with this completly, there have only been two inovations in the series in my view, the start itself and the change of the campaign map which radically changed the way the game has played. Everything after and in between has been mainly graphical in nature or streamlining, to keep the series healthy they will need to innovate something soon, whether its in rome 2 or WWI, it needs to be done rather soon.

[Theedge634]

Im beggining to think that a TW game might work out for later periods if instead of each soldier being depicted on the battle map instead it was done at a regimental or brigade level or something (im not terribly familiar with unit sizes, im fairly certain it would need to be smaller then entire corps but mabe divisions or something)

that, of course would vex many of the new TW customers who have come solely for graphics and everyone who forgets about the terrible games when they see something pretty. Since we wont be able to play with the soldiers required without either buying new computers or haven bought super computers a few years ago I can only assume that either they will be depicted on a pityful scale, would require just about everyone to buy a new computer, or they actually inovate something with the battles like having them split up or something.

It will be intresting to see what they do with aircraft and navel battles if they go that route, I can only assume with current AI pathfinding and lack of player control over units that air battles will turn out more frustrating or comical then anything else.



i agree with this completly, there have only been two inovations in the series in my view, the start itself and the change of the campaign map which radically changed the way the game has played. Everything after and in between has been mainly graphical in nature or streamlining, to keep the series healthy they will need to innovate something soon, whether its in rome 2 or WWI, it needs to be done rather soon.

Well air battles weren't really too big a factor in the 1st world war.... maybe for morale purposes... i would make bi-planes somewhat like agents, able to spy on enemies, and a chance of percent to take down an enemy plane like assassins, then give us one of those fun little videos letting us know if we succeeded or not, all based on expereince of course.

Naval battles just need a bigger map to account for range... and more fluid ship movement due to engines....

I Really think it would be AWESOME if they came out with WW1 Total War on the eve of it's 100 year anniversary.

Oh... and quick edit... i think it's always been that way with the numbers to an extent... i mean Napoleon marched into Russia with 650,000 men... we have to take our 4,000 that they give us and say good enough, ya know?

Have you ever played the Close Combat Series... Total War could DEFINITELY take that series and just scale the graphics and numbers up... would be amazing.

[empr guy]

Well air battles weren't really too big a factor in the 1st world war.... maybe for morale purposes... i would make bi-planes somewhat like agents, able to spy on enemies, and a chance of percent to take down an enemy plane like assassins, then give us one of those fun little videos letting us know if we succeeded or not, all based on expereince of course.

If i cant roleplay the red baron im boycotting!

although seriously, i think alot of people would be expecting to play air battles, having them as agents is an option but it something seems off about it.

Naval battles just need a bigger map to account for range... and more fluid ship movement due to engines....

Yea, i figure that but with things like submarines and the advent of aircraft carriers (iirc they werent a major part of the fleet in WWI, but they were there, they were present by the nine powers treaty in the early 20's anyway) Its just going to be intresting to see how they do it, since a map can only be scaled so much before its a strain on the computer or just a pain for the player (and it would of course be ridiculous for battleships to have to close to 50 meters to start shooting at each other)

I Really think it would be AWESOME if they came out with WW1 Total War on the eve of it's 100 year anniversary.

oh true thats coming up, it would seem rather nice to finnaly get a good WWI game on the 100th anniversary.

Oh... and quick edit... i think it's always been that way with the numbers to an extent... i mean Napoleon marched into Russia with 650,000 men... we have to take our 4,000 that they give us and say good enough, ya know?

I know the scale has always been off but it wasnt so bad before, in rome max armies (large units anyways, not huge) were like 2k, while normal roman legions had like 10k men in them, so it wasnt completly unrealistic. M2 had similar scale, but by napoleon we started to see larger armies of over 100k, a 1000% increase but the number of troops you comand only went up like 200%.

With WWI there were hundreds of thousands of casualties in every major battle, millions could actually take part, and even if we control 10k men the scale has kind of gone all . Obviously its not the end of the world, but the reason i suggested a divisional basses for units is because if they try to animate every soldier i dont think it will feel quite right.

Have you ever played the Close Combat Series... Total War could DEFINITELY take that series and just scale the graphics and numbers up... would be amazing.

nope but wiki makes it look like the ancestor of men of war, which is a fantastic game but if thats right i think TW would be hard pressed to do that even in a game of S1's scale with alot less men.

[Signus]

Well air battles weren't really too big a factor in the 1st world war....

Er... wrong. Aircraft was a HUGE factor. It was probably the biggest arms race, with new planes being churned out as fast as they could be made. They were responsible for bombing supply lines, bridges, trenches, enemy bases, enemy mortars, enemy observation balloons and blimps...

In any case, the way you're describing this game makes it sound like it'll be almost entirely different from any other Total War game, so uh... why not... just not have it be a Total War game? Let another company do it.

[Theedge634]

Er... wrong. Aircraft was a HUGE factor. It was probably the biggest arms race, with new planes being churned out as fast as they could be made. They were responsible for bombing supply lines, bridges, trenches, enemy bases, enemy mortars, enemy observation balloons and blimps...

In any case, the way you're describing this game makes it sound like it'll be almost entirely different from any other Total War game, so uh... why not... just not have it be a Total War game? Let another company do it.

I'm not wrong, and you're overstating it... They were definitely of importence.... But tactical use was limited... Aircraft if I'm correct did not sink a single ship in the war.... Soo having them in sea battles would be a recanaissence only deal, helping you get a 1 up on subs..... On land yea they could strafe trenches and use light bombs, inaccurately.... Planes were a bigger factor in intel, morale, and artillery spotting then actual strategic bombing.... They were not solely responsible for turning the tide of battles or the war. Therefore in a ww1 game.... They should be used as call-INS shown that they are there, they have uses... But they aren't gonna win that battle for you.

I would say artillery development, and production of artillery shells was FAR and away the biggest arms race.

I'm just throwing ideas out there.... But to be honest the game doesn't change THAT much...
Let's recap

Revamped AI - which incorporates the use of infamous treaty/alliances.... Which only changes the way ai behaves and the options on your diplomacy screen...

Zooming out to 2d - really changes nothing except for the ability to navigate a map better... Accounting for an increased map size... Also helps you keep in tune with whats going on tactically, a little easier.. As I said, it was a nice and well done feature in supreme commander...

Progressive land deformation - to a point obviously... But nothing about gameplay changes other then more available cover... Just seems like a really nice feature... That can show the horrible effects of a stagnant front... With the advance of artillery...

Armies constructing trenches... A la forts... Nothing revolutionary here

Trenches themselves... Just expanding on the manning of buildings seen in napoleon total war.... Giving large cover bonuses and such...

Aircraft - work as call INS.... A special ability for a commander unit or somewhere along those line for land battles.... A non controllable, but deployable unit for sea battles... Highlight carrier click ability, click where... Plane searches to spot subs, and harrass enemy ships....

Non of this is a change to the interface of the game itself, the only real fundamental change... Is tactics... And perhaps political strategy.... But any tactical change will be a welcome one IMO....

I just think total war has the best current setup to translate to the scale and type of battle ww1 is... After rome 2 (most likely) where do you suggest they go? Medieval 3... Mongol, Greece?.... All thes could in essence be expansions as there is no real revolutionary tactical changes to style and battle type.... I just think after Rome 2.... They need to go back to revolutionizing the game again... And this time do it correctly don't let another empire type debacle happen....

If it doesn't work out, well hey they can always go back to the bread an butter melée mess that they do effectively at CA :/

[empr guy]

Zooming out to 2d - really changes nothing except for the ability to navigate a map better... Accounting for an increased map size... Also helps you keep in tune with whats going on tactically, a little easier.. As I said, it was a nice and well done feature in supreme commander...

the only thing im concerned about is if this will actually be able to work on such a large scale with such good graphics that CA will no doubt insist on including. Supreme commander shows it can be done but it was in the late 90's, and i think the scale was alot smaller.

I just think total war has the best current setup to translate to the scale and type of battle ww1 is... After rome 2 (most likely) where do you suggest they go? Medieval 3... Mongol, Greece?.... All thes could in essence be expansions as there is no real revolutionary tactical changes to style and battle type.... I just think after Rome 2.... They need to go back to revolutionizing the game again... And this time do it correctly don't let another empire type debacle happen....

Well the setting isnt what revolutionizes the game, its just the features and things they add that make it revolutionary. The thing that made rome revolutionary wasnt that it was rome or it had a drastic new play style, it was the map itself. I agree that they need to do something revolutionary and not another repeat, but things like mongol/hun TW can turn into very succesful TW games so long as effort is put into making them.

Look at empire, there were no real conflicts around 1700, nothing big happened, nothing exciting, but the reason everyone disliked it was for the bugs, not that it wasnt exciting, because the player can change history and make things exciting even though they weren't. This just proves to me that setting isnt important as long as a conflict can be made.

[irontaino]

One thing that'd be interesting to see is how they'd transition from line fighting with muskets to repeating rifles and eventually to trench warfare.

[JCDC]

if you want to play the game you are describing you pretty much can, its called civilization 4 beyond the sword et. al. i see no place for aircraft and regiment size units on the battle map, im not saying it would be a bad game, i just dont see it as a total war game, its much too big a departure from the current game ethos. the total war series takes eras of warfare that are totally underrepresented in mainstream games and makes them very engaging and fun, and lets you manage tactics at a level of detail that is very challenging and varied, its based on armies that fought battles in hours not years, it just doesnt work for anything beyond the early 1800's.
ww2 is not under represented elsewhere so there is no need to go there, and no scope for new ideas much, and ww1 would just be plain boring in the total war format, becuase the mechanics are totally wrong for that sort of combat. the game you are describing resembles the civilization series much more than total war.
just because every total war game isnt revolutionary so what? why do they ahve to be? each one is new and has new features that have never been seen before, and they know what makes them good.

im not saying your opinion is invalid at all, i thought about the same thing, just every time i think about it from a different angle, it just doesnt work to me, not for total war. the next game should be mongol total war, that would be new territory, china and the far east, with totally new armies and tactics. i think artillery and trenches would totally go against the good bits about total war, the fast fluid battles and action all in one area, artillery that can fire 5 miles would suck, even empire total war was too much shooting to be really interesting.

As for diplomacy and stuff as mentioned earlier, i cant imagine that dominating the world by diplomacy and alliances would work in this game? or this fanbase, there would be far to much economy management and diplomacy, not doing anything that would annoy anyone, yeah its an intellectual challenge agaisnt a human, but not against AI, ai cant do that stuff, its just a formula to win, it wouldnt work, and where would the thrill be?. you talk about conquering empires abroad, but all empires in this time were conquered through diplomacy and econmics and low intensity war, none of which would be anything but dull and impossible to represent in the current format, and the only battles you fought would be natives with spears against riflemen? dull much? its called total war for a reason not total diplomacy!

and airbattles? seriously? how would that work?

i think the idea you are creating here is a mesh of all the favorite bits of other games, not using individually rendered soldiers, just divisions and you get told when the lose but cant really see it? seriously this is just civilization being described here, get one of the amazing mods for Civ 4 and you can do 90% of what im reading here! i dont see it as a total war game.

[lamefellow]

A few problems with WW1 specifically:
Diplomacy would be pretty much out the window
Turn base mechanics could be a problem with a more 'fluid' battlefield
Scale (how much many miles of trenches are you going to include in a map?)
With every one fussing about graphics now a days, com ram and graphics issues. Especially with arty, blimps, soldiers, bi-planes etc on a single map

[VltimaRatio]

I have some ideas for a Victorian-WW1-(WW2) game. You could have researchable infantry doctrines that change the way units behave in battle (looser formations etc) so that there's a development in that area as time progresses.

Airplanes are not that difficult. They'd be units you train, in squads, at an airfield building. Fighters, bombers, transports etc.. They can attack buildings like agents (stacked together for maximum effect) in which case the number of AA batteries in the city would increase your casualties, and the level of intelligence gathered determines what you can target.

They can engage other "fleets" in what is somewhat like a naval battle with a time limit (fuel is limited) where you try to rout or destroy the enemy aircraft. In simplified terms, the water is just invisible but the concept is fairly similar.

The could also be attached to a stack (a division) and used in battle by selecting the air units during the battle and selecting a target. The planes appear, attack, and return, and can be used again after a timer completes. Off-map artillery would be used the same way, just like in World in Conflict.

And if you put paratrooper units in transport planes you can drop them onto the battlefield during a battle as an alternate way of deploying. This mostly applies to WW2 although much of it could be used for WW1 also.

Diplomacy has to be redone, with pacts and alliances introduced. This means individual countries are not just allied to other individual states, they can chose to join an alliance or form a pact with multiple countries.

Trenches could be constructed like forts by an army and could be improved over several turns with additional fortifications. I do, however, not think they should determine region borders, that would be too chaotic.

This would obviously be a new engine made from scratch, there's no reason why this shouldn't be possible just because it can't be done in the current TW titles.

[King Sama]

I have some ideas for a Victorian-WW1-(WW2) game. You could have researchable infantry doctrines that change the way units behave in battle (looser formations etc) so that there's a development in that area as time progresses.

Airplanes are not that difficult. They'd be units you train, in squads, at an airfield building. Fighters, bombers, transports etc.. They can attack buildings like agents (stacked together for maximum effect) in which case the number of AA batteries in the city would increase your casualties, and the level of intelligence gathered determines what you can target.

They can engage other "fleets" in what is somewhat like a naval battle with a time limit (fuel is limited) where you try to rout or destroy the enemy aircraft. In simplified terms, the water is just invisible but the concept is fairly similar.

The could also be attached to a stack (a division) and used in battle by selecting the air units during the battle and selecting a target. The planes appear, attack, and return, and can be used again after a timer completes. Off-map artillery would be used the same way, just like in World in Conflict.

And if you put paratrooper units in transport planes you can drop them onto the battlefield during a battle as an alternate way of deploying. This mostly applies to WW2 although much of it could be used for WW1 also.

Diplomacy has to be redone, with pacts and alliances introduced. This means individual countries are not just allied to other individual states, they can chose to join an alliance or form a pact with multiple countries.

Trenches could be constructed like forts by an army and could be improved over several turns with additional fortifications. I do, however, not think they should determine region borders, that would be too chaotic.

This would obviously be a new engine made from scratch, there's no reason why this shouldn't be possible just because it can't be done in the current TW titles.

To be honest, that sounds like an ideal TGW+

[Ba'alzamon]

I just had a quick thought on how air battles could be manufactured.
Okay I'll be very brief on the idea and lemme know what you guys think....

-If an army is equipped with airplanes in its "unit" on the map, they will enter combat with them
-The way for these airplanes/airships to fight, would deal with a dual-layered battle map that consists of A) a ground portion for the infantry and such B) an area of higher elevation that the planes do their battle in.
-To get to these different layers, all one would need to do would be zoom out far enough and then the other battle map would snap into focus.

-If one army goes into battle with planes while the other does not have planes, that army can select the planes, which are circling above, and have them perform strafing runs along the enemies frontlines/artillery/reserves and then pull up back into the sky.

-The victor of a plane v plane battle would then be able to use whatever planes they had left to start their strafing runs on the enemy.

Problems: Despite the sheer concept of this, I feel like it COULD work...
Fuel would be a major issue that would have to be balanced in order for this to work properly. (IE: no plane spam whoring going on in a battle)
Fuel should be a major expense for your army which deals more with the whole campaign rebalance as a whole.

Lemme know your ideas

[Azog 150]

TW battlefield gameplay just isn't suited to the increasingly small scale unit actions that occured over this period, as well as the vast spread of the battles. I could see it working up until about the 1880's-1890's but not much further

[Ba'alzamon]

Would a type of system like this work?:
You have the classic overhread view of the map and then you can "zoom" in on your units on the campaign map to go right in to the battles? Instead of having pre-set battlefield dimensions?

Actually on second thought never mind..

[Gigan]

If CA made WW1: Total War, they would need to make a whole new engine for it. It would be so different from the other total war games that I don't think it would even be part of the total war franchise.

[JCDC]

Im still seeing Civ 5, red alert, Company of heroes etc more than Total war. i think the wish list you guys are making is for a perfectly viable game, just not a total war game. saying it would work if you changed everything in the total war engine is the same as saying it wouldnt work in total war i think.

[a tw player]

Just try out the TGW mod - Add in models, more detailed campaign map, more animations for cover in the large units as they move forward, more persistent frontlines on the campaign map...It really would not be that hard for them to make. I would say though that to do it justice with the large maps they would need to leave WW1 until a few more years and they have the more widespread computing power in the consumer market to run such a game. The step though from, say, NTW to WW1 really would not be as large a step as from Med1 to Rome if you think about it...

As for the person saying they would need to make a whole new engine for it, so? Warscape is old and TW needs a new one at any rate, I hope that Rome2 (I assume that's the next game) does use a new engine anyway.

People seem to be looking at WW1 combat more like WW2 in here, yes I agree that the small squad based combat (ww2) would really not be viable in TW, but WW1 overall consisted on large scale movements of troops; essentially it would just need larger units in a more spread out formation, and the gameplay would be similar.

Only a short post, but I'd written complete essays on a WW1 game in the past, and I don't really fancy that right now lol, the OP has done one anyway

Oh PS - An idea would be to have Victoria and WW1 handled very much like Empire and Napoleon; Victoria can be the main game spanning the continents, while WW1 could be the more focused game in Europe as that is where the only meaningful combat took place, and a more focused scope would add more detail to the territorial gains anyway

PPS - I definitely am hoping that the game order will be Rome2==>Renaissance/Pike&Shot/30 years war (17th century)==>Victoria==>WW1. After that, we could be up to 2020, so a Med3 could be well overdue and in popular demand

[empr guy]

Just try out the TGW mod - Add in models, more detailed campaign map, more animations for cover in the large units as they move forward, more persistent frontlines on the campaign map...It really would not be that hard for them to make. I would say though that to do it justice with the large maps they would need to leave WW1 until a few more years and they have the more widespread computing power in the consumer market to run such a game.

The only thing about WWI TW is it wont be practical until they make a good AI, since the western front will end up as a mess (AI not comprehending trenchs and all that) and the eastern front if you play as germany will make you think every russian general is and idiot and its incompetance will let you get huge victorys early on meaning russia is only a distraction. Actually, scratch that last part, it would be oddly realistic

They also need good diplomacy or else it will turn into a cluster real fast, along with (if made in the next few years anyway) a new battle system that represents the hundreds of thousands of troops without murdering computers or just having 10k stacks wondering around.

From what i understand about that mod, they just made starting positions near WWI and then forced countrys to fight each other. In a true WWI game we would need an AI that isnt scripted, can act competently on its own so that its not the same exact war every single time. Sure the player can change things, but the AI should still be able to decide that as russia it should ally with germany instead of france or something.

The step though from, say, NTW to WW1 really would not be as large a step as from Med1 to Rome if you think about it...

In what way? battles were still fought the same way and had similar unit types, the only differences were the factions cultures and units themselves. napoleon to WWI is completly different because you have tanks and planes and machine guns and trenches and dreadnaughts and all that

As for the person saying they would need to make a whole new engine for it, so? Warscape is old and TW needs a new one at any rate, I hope that Rome2 (I assume that's the next game) does use a new engine anyway.

yea, i dont understand why some people seem to love the warscape engine so much or think its going to be impossible to make anew one or something, for one warscape isn't really that good and idk if its actually part of it but they ruined melee mechanics, and CA has probably had a new engine under development since 2008 or whenever.

Oh PS - An idea would be to have Victoria and WW1 handled very much like Empire and Napoleon; Victoria can be the main game spanning the continents, while WW1 could be the more focused game in Europe as that is where the only meaningful combat took place, and a more focused scope would add more detail to the territorial gains anyway

I think if we are going to have a world war one game we are going to need more then europe. I realize that most combat took place in europe but again this is a game not a historical simulator, most of the world needs to be included so the game can actually be good, and many scenarios can be played out, like what if mexico did fight on the central powers side? What if america joined the central powers? etc.

PPS - I definitely am hoping that the game order will be Rome2==>Renaissance/Pike&Shot/30 years war (17th century)==>Victoria==>WW1. After that, we could be up to 2020, so a Med3 could be well overdue and in popular demand

The only problem i see is TW's appearnt failure with gun powder. I realize its mostly based on empire which is one game but then again they will really need to prove they can actually handle it before warming up to the idea of several gunpowder games in a row.

Although im having an idea, i wonder what would happen if the next (post warscape) engine could be made exclusivly for melee so it isnt all stupid poorly implemented motion capture BS, while the one after that is made purely for gunpowder type tactics and stratagys. I dont know if it would actually improve the AI if they went into the project knowing thats all the AI would do instead of warscapes duel use, but i cant help but wonder.

[a tw player]

The only thing about WWI TW is it wont be practical until they make a good AI, since the western front will end up as a mess (AI not comprehending trenchs and all that) and the eastern front if you play as germany will make you think every russian general is and idiot and its incompetance will let you get huge victorys early on meaning russia is only a distraction. Actually, scratch that last part, it would be oddly realistic

Fair point Although I'm sure that they could get good results via simple AI scripting; when defending man trenches etc. as a base, then move on with the more complex stuff on top of that. I'm no AI modder though so I'm hardly an expert in this field

They also need good diplomacy or else it will turn into a cluster real fast, along with (if made in the next few years anyway) a new battle system that represents the hundreds of thousands of troops without murdering computers or just having 10k stacks wondering around.

True, although I would say that the CAI, particularly in S2, is vastly improved and does now show signs as acting like a human (suing for peace if it feels in danger etc.) although obviously there is room for improvement still, but I suppose that would naturally come over the years anyway. On the battle system, yes I would hope that the stack sizes are made larger simply because computers will have progressed, I would also hope for more unit cards as an option to allow for more tactical flexibility...However, remembrer that as long as things are properly scaled and balanced, smaller than irl isn't a problem. Think in all of the previous TW games (around 3-4k maximum possible stack, without modding ofc) and their numbers certainly aren't realistic in terms of major battles, but it's scaled so isn't a problem.

From what i understand about that mod, they just made starting positions near WWI and then forced countrys to fight each other. In a true WWI game we would need an AI that isnt scripted, can act competently on its own so that its not the same exact war every single time. Sure the player can change things, but the AI should still be able to decide that as russia it should ally with germany instead of france or something.

Well as you can see, I've been quite involved with the mod and it's a little more than that, and things will be done in v5.0 that will improve this aspect...Will keep hush hush though But yes I agree again, think of NTW though, it should basically be similar to that IMO (assuming we go the standalone expansion/focused route) where the alliances are made at the start as was historical, but it is possible to deviate from there. Afterall, TW is set in a historical context, and the player can make from that what they want.

In what way? battles were still fought the same way and had similar unit types, the only differences were the factions cultures and units themselves. napoleon to WWI is completly different because you have tanks and planes and machine guns and trenches and dreadnaughts and all that

I know what you mean in terms of new features, but I'm saying that, in my opinion, the new features would not be so revolutionary and difficult from engine to engine. Tanks, trenches and mgs would all be easily implemented into such a game, and planes were not that important during WW1 as they were in WW2, used mainly for reconnaissance and artillery spotting. As for dreadnoughts, this would be a more difficult matter, but basically it would be a naval system with larger maps and a slower pace I would guess. Again, not so revolutionary as creating naval combat a la Empire.

yea, i dont understand why some people seem to love the warscape engine so much or think its going to be impossible to make anew one or something, for one warscape isn't really that good and idk if its actually part of it but they ruined melee mechanics, and CA has probably had a new engine under development since 2008 or whenever.

Agreed on both points

I think if we are going to have a world war one game we are going to need more then europe. I realize that most combat took place in europe but again this is a game not a historical simulator, most of the world needs to be included so the game can actually be good, and many scenarios can be played out, like what if mexico did fight on the central powers side? What if america joined the central powers? etc.

Oh yes I see your point, but the problem is the scope versus depth factor. The problem in Empire was that they tried to cover too much space but did not add enough depth and immersion as a result. Now, that is why I think doing a Victoria/WW1 "partnership" of games could work well as you have the one large one on scope, with the other one in depth. Could work And just a thought, I suppose the Middle east would need to be added too (similar map to Rome), but also maybe with the eastern coast of America added to give the Americans something to play as Of course, if they gave us some ing mod tools we could make better maps based on what people want, but not going to happen

The only problem i see is TW's appearnt failure with gun powder. I realize its mostly based on empire which is one game but then again they will really need to prove they can actually handle it before warming up to the idea of several gunpowder games in a row.

To each to their own I guess, but I got 650 hours on NTW and about 300 on Empire ,and they are probably my most favourite games so far. The only problem was the fact that gunpowder is a new feature so the AI wasn't quite right in Empire (understatement ) although it's not too shabby actually now. Again, over the years this would naturally progress I would hope.

Although im having an idea, i wonder what would happen if the next (post warscape) engine could be made exclusivly for melee so it isnt all stupid poorly implemented motion capture BS, while the one after that is made purely for gunpowder type tactics and stratagys. I dont know if it would actually improve the AI if they went into the project knowing thats all the AI would do instead of warscapes duel use, but i cant help but wonder.

Indeed, here comes my 1am analogy that probably won't make sense...If it's hot then you wear a T-Shirt, you don't wear a coat but chop off the sleeves! Ie. Wascape was for gunpowder, so moving back to melee they should make an engine designed specifically

PS - I thought I wasn't going to write an essay?

PPS - +rep for some good discussion

PPPS - From re-reading this this-morning, there's some hideous grammar lol, sorry