Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

How would a Total War game work in a WW1 setting?

Callaxes

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
1,676
Assuming we're using the old risk-style movement of the first 2 TW games.

- 1 turn = 2 weeks
- War should be mainly focused on draining economy. Blockades are much more effective and a failed offensive will cost the opponent a ton of money, not to mention loss of morale.
- Armies facing each other over a border will engage in trench warfare. Each turn 5-10% will die due to artillery fire (the number of casualties depends on how much artillery you have defending the province). Since the entire western front is a huge trench line, the goal is to weaken one spot enough before breaking through with an offensive.
- Just like in Shogun or Medieval, place your army over an enemy province to engage in a battle. Battles should be similar to Empire TW, but with more focus on artillery and much, much larger armies.
- Propaganda is a very powerful; weapon. The morale of your nation is as important as your economy when it comes to recruiting soldiers. Towards the end you can issue drafting/conscription, but that will piss off the population, so propaganda is most effective way to increase your army.
- Submarines can be used on ships the same way assassins are used on generals
- Mobilization of troops (railway lines) is a lot more important than fortifications.
- Captured territory is pretty much useless (except for its tactical importance). Only the national provinces and industries can be developed and exploited.
- More useful espionage.


I'm still not sure how battles should be fought. Total War was awesome when it came to small fights, but battles the size of Somme might not work.
 

Panthera

Scholar
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
714
Location
Canada
I just wish CA would learn how army command works. They'd probably solve all their AI problems in one fell swoop if they'd just be arsed to make a divisional AI. This is insanely more necessary in post-gunpowder eras, and a WW1 game with only tactical control just wouldn't work.
 

Wirdschowerdn

Ph.D. in World Saving
Patron
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
34,684
Location
Clogging the Multiverse with a Crowbar
CA would have to totally re-invent Total War for a WW1 setting. Because now you don't just have line infantry clashing together, you also got airplanes, tanks, mobile howitzers etc.
Also, battles were enormous and often chaotic. Especially on the Eastern front which was much more fluid than the west front (trench warfare).
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,213
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
There's a WW1 mod for Napoleon. It's not bad, but the obvious limitations (no real trenches, no tanks yet, airplanes will most probably never be in) leave out too many features the real war had to make it feel realistic.

Artillery is powerful and rifles are very accurate, there's also machine guns, so going on the offensive will lead to many of your guys dying. Now, the game would only need proper WW1 fortifications, which probably won't even happen if mod tools are released.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,303
Location
Poland
There is no way to properly model WWI in current Total War approach. Scale is too low, battles are too large both in numbers and in territory, frontlines are non existen, econoym is non existent. I would leave WWI scenario to competent devs, CA could make at best a number of scenarios with regimental combat, probably on eastern front.
 

Chef_Hathaway

King of the Juice
Patron
White Knight
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,066
Location
Dicksville
Divinity: Original Sin BattleTech
Trash said:
Long story short, it wouldn't.

This.

The warfare aspect alone would constitute a total over-haul of the game engine, not to mention the economic and political systems.
 

mlc82

Scholar
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
125
I agree that the tactical battles would require a massive overhaul of the battle system.

Given CA's track record regarding AI (more accurately lack of it), the entire world (depending on what side you picked, your historical allies included) would just go ape shit and declare war on you, alliances be damned within a few turns (with no intimidating armies necessary).
 

Erzherzog

Magister
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
2,887
Location
Mid-Atlantic
mlc82 said:
Given CA's track record regarding AI (more accurately lack of it), the entire world (depending on what side you picked, your historical allies included) would just go ape shit and declare war on you, alliances be damned within a few turns (with no intimidating armies necessary).

:lol: :lol:

Has CA ever even given a reason for their AI always doing this?
 

mlc82

Scholar
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
125
Erzherzog said:
mlc82 said:
Given CA's track record regarding AI (more accurately lack of it), the entire world (depending on what side you picked, your historical allies included) would just go ape shit and declare war on you, alliances be damned within a few turns (with no intimidating armies necessary).

:lol: :lol:

Has CA ever even given a reason for their AI always doing this?

IIRC (I haven't kept up with this series really, Medieval 2 was the last I've played though I did keep up with Empire TW info as well when it was released) this is never, ever officially mentioned at all, except in previews for upcoming games saying (back when) "We know the AI in Rome sucked, and we've made it awesome, just like a human!" (paraphrase of long-forgotten by mainstream game reviewers PC Gamer interview, "mainstream game reviews" including PC Gamer after the game was released).

Then they did the same for Empire "We know M2TW's AI sucked, so we've totally fixed it now- by the way, the grass blows in the wind in this game!". Then as usual, those who became suckers yet again (I stopped this nasty trend after buying M2 on release day thinking they actually tried to improve the AI from the abysmal Rome) went ballistic on forums talking about how god-awfully shitty the AI was.

To be fair, I heard ETW: Napoleon or whatever it was called finally improved the AI to some degree, but by now I could not care less about this series other than RTW and M2 mods (I love Europa Barbarorum, can't wait for EBII and Dominion of the Sword if it ever comes out) so haven't even considered trying it.
 

mlc82

Scholar
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
125
Also, I do think they once actually mentioned (and sorry I can't cite a source for this off the top of my head, it's comedy gold if it could be proven) that their "target audience" would simply be confused and unsure what to do next in the games if a constant state of war wasn't the norm. This was after the release of Medieval 2 IIRC. A far cry from the Shogun/Medieval 1 days for sure.

IMO, this one ranked right up there with the explanation of Empire TW's sail-rigged ships being able to still sail forward against a direct wind because having said wind push the ship backward would "confuse most of their players". Granted, this (wind blowing into the face of a sail-rigged ship causing it to be pushed backward) was an obvious occurence to me at around 10 yrs old playing Sid Meier's Pirates on my NES...
 

oscar

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
8,038
Location
NZ
The TW games would feel a lot more plausible if they were set on a smaller scale (e.g having a Peninsular War campaign and a Conquest of India campaign instead of all of God-damn Europe). This would make it feel less ridiculous for the control of Europe being decided in battles between 2,000 strong armies.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,213
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
So am I the only one who can still get hopelessly addicted to (modded) Total War games? Heck, even Empire with DarthMod Ultimate can be really awesome, even though the AI is still lacking (but improved over vanilla).

I just love commanding large armies in the battles and having a world conquest mode as background for the battles, so the TW games are p. much the best game idea ever for me. My dream game would be something like Europa Universalis with TW battles, or Blitzkrieg/Sudden Strike with a world conquest mode.
 

mlc82

Scholar
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
125
JarlFrank said:
So am I the only one who can still get hopelessly addicted to (modded) Total War games? Heck, even Empire with DarthMod Ultimate can be really awesome, even though the AI is still lacking (but improved over vanilla).

I just love commanding large armies in the battles and having a world conquest mode as background for the battles, so the TW games are p. much the best game idea ever for me. My dream game would be something like Europa Universalis with TW battles, or Blitzkrieg/Sudden Strike with a world conquest mode.

I Love Europa Barbarorum (with some extra added mods to it, especially the Alex.exe mod that magically fixes some of the strategic AI stupidity) for RTW, easily my favorite game mod of all time.

Have had a lot of fun with Deus lo Vult, Chivalry II for M2 as well, along with an old mod called "The Long Road" way back when the game was released that quickly fixed most of the problems CA took their sweet time (months) to get around to officially patching.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
JF, you pervert. CA has fucked up their games since M1 and even that was shitty since you could rule all of Europe+Middle-East easily enough. As others have pointed out, the engine would not support WW1 style warfare at all - Napoleonic warfare is the absolute latest style of war that it can model without extensive renovation.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
oscar said:
The TW games would feel a lot more plausible if they were set on a smaller scale (e.g having a Peninsular War campaign and a Conquest of India campaign instead of all of God-damn Europe). This would make it feel less ridiculous for the control of Europe being decided in battles between 2,000 strong armies.

Like in Shogun Total War, the only great game they ever made. Also on a smaller time scale, i.e 1 turn = 1 season (as in STW) or even 1 month as in a hypothetic game I had hoped they'd make one day.

I was not confused by STW.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,213
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
reaven said:
I just hope they dont fuck up the new shogun.

Better hope that DarthVader or some other modder will go and try to fix everything they did wrong with Shogun 2. Once the mods come out, there's no reason to touch the vanilla version of any TW game since Rome again.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,303
Location
Poland
This looks very very good but will the AI be up to challenge? Because if its the classic retarded TW AI then playing it gives me no sense of acheivement or happiness.
 

Dirk Diggler

Scholar
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,946
No clue, but I'm guessing it's going to hit somewhere around the 'less retarded' Chivalry 2 mark, which provides a decent enough challenge(not spectacular, but can be tough at the start for sure) on VH/VH.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom