World War II TW could still be happening

[Matamoros]

I found this article of a spanish games website, hinting that WW2 TW could be something real. Although this website is very reliable I find it difficult to believe.
I'd like to know if this info lies in another source (german or english websites too) Because I didn't find anything similar anywhere.

http://www.3djuegos.com/juegos/avanc...l-war-rome-ii/ on the the last paragraph


Basically says that the idea of a WW2 TW only depends on all the persons in charge at CA and that if they sit at a table and everyone agrees on this, it could very well happen.

The reason I don't believe this isn't going to happen is that Sega bought recently Relic and now she owns CA and Relic. That way, Sega has the monopoly of strategy games on pc market. The path of the formation-based strategy (CA) and the path of the squad-based strategy (Relic). Therefore, I don't think that CA will be involved in some kind of squad-based game. Relic has the necessary expertise for this. And that would be a very bad idea market wise: owning 2 companies and competing with each other is simply suicide.

I hope they stay out of firearms if they aren't muskets or arquebuses. Renaissance is the logical step forward in the series, that's how I see it.

[Pazu the Kitsune]

What it ultimately comes down to is this: If sometime in the distant and unforseeable future CA decides to make a more 'modern' Total War game, say, anything set beyond 1900, then they will have to create a new engine, something that will be different from the one they are using now, to accommodate all the differences between 'modern' war and 'ancient' war.

Total War games have come in a pattern: you get roughly one 'remake' (Medieval 2, Shogun 2, Rome 2) for every 'original' Total War title (Shogun, Medieval, Rome, Empire/Napoleon). So what options do they have for games set on the current engine? Obviously both Medieval 3 and Empire 2 are there, as well as things set after each one (something between Medieval and Empire, or something after Empire, like a Victorian era game). Going back they could do a stand alone title to cover the first millennium, the Fall of Rome and Dark Ages certainly have their own appeal. Less likely would be any title set long before Rome Total War, ie Ancient egypt or Babylon or what have you, as there is generally less interest and the game would be more limited.

So one could assume that if CA and Total War manage to stay afloat for a long time, that they will eventually be forced to face the prospect of a more 'modern' Total War game.

I will say this: I have no doubts that CA could make a very good WWII era Total War game....just looking at the previews of the Siege of Carthage for Rome II says alot (very 'D-Day esque')...if they have the patience, time and resources then there is no reason why they couldnt make one.

I guess the point of all this is to say that a WWII Total War game is entirely possible but whether that happens or not ultimately is not up for us to decide.

[sickpeople]

I want something like Empire 2 only set in 16-18th century. Age of exploration, 30 years war, etc. Really underrepresented period of history.
I just dont see Modern Warfare set in this engine.

[Matamoros]

I think you are absolutely right, Pazu. It will be required a whole new engine to be able to produce a WW2 TW but at the expense of having to throw away the warscape engine and this is a big step to do. But then again, I don't see the point in this since Relic (now part of Sega) is the most indicated company to achieve this task. CA would surely do a good job too but why risk it when Relic has the expertise in WW2. This would be a whole new uncharted ground for CA, and yet there is so many events of ancient and modern military history that need to be told in timeframes so often overlooked by all: XVI-XVII century for example.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I just recently played Shogun II for the first time. I bought Fall of the Samurai standalone.

And wow, I love it. Imagining a Victorian Era/Gilded Age game (probably as Empire 2 TW) on a larger scale is really interesting stuff.

WW2 TW needs to happen. If done right, it would probably be one of the most popular games of a given year for any platform. It would attrach THAT much attention. In Fall of the Samurai, you can start to see that system coming together with armies able to call in naval support. I imagine air support could build from this as well.

Still, I will repeat for you guys what I have been saying since speculation was churning for what would become Shogun II. The technology for a really good WWII TW is STILL not there yet.

[Razor]

I found this article of a spanish games website, hinting that WW2 TW could be something real. Although this website is very reliable I find it difficult to believe.
I'd like to know if this info lies in another source (german or english websites too) Because I didn't find anything similar anywhere.

http://www.3djuegos.com/juegos/avanc...l-war-rome-ii/ on the the last paragraph


Basically says that the idea of a WW2 TW only depends on all the persons in charge at CA and that if they sit at a table and everyone agrees on this, it could very well happen.

The reason I don't believe this isn't going to happen is that Sega bought recently Relic and now she owns CA and Relic. That way, Sega has the monopoly of strategy games on pc market. The path of the formation-based strategy (CA) and the path of the squad-based strategy (Relic). Therefore, I don't think that CA will be involved in some kind of squad-based game. Relic has the necessary expertise for this. And that would be a very bad idea market wise: owning 2 companies and competing with each other is simply suicide.

I hope they stay out of firearms if they aren't muskets or arquebuses. Renaissance is the logical step forward in the series, that's how I see it.

If you think about it: WW2 requires a totally new way of fighting battles. Think of Company of Heroes where you need to conquer territory (I believe Rome 2 will be making use of that feature too for sieges at least). The territory you conquer generate manpower points that allow you to "buy"/bring reinforcements to the battle. It would be unrealistic and quite a hassle if you'd also have to gather ammunition and fuel on the battle map. Defeating an enemy wouldn't require the total annihilation of every unit in battles, but conquering sectors of the map to make the enemy withdraw. Whether the units should be squad-sized or platoon is debatable but don't forget that generally infantry squads would consist of 10 soldiers - twice the size of squads in Company of Heroes and tank squads 5 tanks. The amount of units per army has to increase massively, but that shouldn't be too big a problem because the units are small.
And then think Total War with a big campaign map where you move your armies and divisions around (I'd recommend a scale of 1 division is one unit). Though that unit would consist of several unit types (tanks, infantry, artillery etc.) depending on what type of division it is. It would be nice to create your own division and decide what types of units should be in or not or to deceive the enemy by labeling a division as infantry but have a unusual amount of different units that normally would be in an infantry division (heavy tank units for example) (which happened in reality too). Dive into research and technology and equip your units with new weapons and technology.
I can already see it happen.

I personally applaud any new period they bring to the Total War series. Renaissance or WW2 I don't care. IMO WW2 would be the more interesting and challenging because anyone with modding skills could make a decent Renaissance mod already. The only problem I can see for a WW2: Total War would be its massive scale. On the other hand it would lend itself perfectly for DLC. Overall I bet it would be something that's never seen before.

[OmegaBolt]

CA have always said that any period is possible, if they want to do it and there is demand so that's nothing new. I doubt they'd jump straight to WW2 (and I kind of hope they don't, there are already hundreds of WW2 games out there). I also don't think they'll remake Empire any time soon... I can't see there being such a huge engine jump as there was between S/M and R/M2, at least it would purely be for technical reasons rather than gameplay. Unless they radically change the way Total War works we surely have something working at maxium efficiency already.

That being said it was a massive shame Empire was never ported to Napoleon, as was suggested... that would have surely made it the best TW to date. Properly fixing that game and bringing it up to Shogun 2 standards would be fantastic but I don't think that's worth a whole new £40 game. It simply hasn't been long enough and it isn't completely outdated yet.