Do you think a WW I Total war game could work?

[Erttheking]

Maybe as an RTS but not really as an FPS. The guns were crap, the charges were suicidal and half of the time you would die from a shell or gas. Now a flight simulator...that might work.

 

[Blunderboy]

Why do people keep talking about FPS' in this thread?

 

[Arkvoodle]

We've had CIVIL WAR first-person-shooters; I don't really see why a WWI game would be that difficult to make and sell.

Though ti be true to the actual conflict I think a strategy style of gameplay would fit better.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

let's face it, gunpowder ruined warfare.

 

[White_Lama]

Mustard gas would be OP.

Totally needs nerfage!

 

[Jandau]

SNIP

Not inherently wrong, but they won't suit the game style or engines. A fantasy setting might well work, but it would need a world that is believable and absorbing, and presumably original. This is something that's very difficult to achieve.
But the futuristic setting would not work. If, as you say the 20th Century doesn?t lend itself to the series, then how exactly does a future setting do so? Presumably as things develop small unit tactics become even more important then they currently are, and this makes the premise much harder to work with the Total War style.

Ok, let's take this one at a time. The fantasy setting would work. It's essentially the Medieval/Pre-Christ basic paradigm, only with extra elements added into the mix. How much of a fantasy setting they make it is open for debate. I'm not saying it has to be all Elves and Fairies and whatnot. A Low Fantasy setting might work just as well. In fact someone tried something like that with King Arthur, using the general broad strokes of a Total War game, but set it in Arthurian england, complete with spells, elves (evil ones, for the most part), the occasional Ogre and so on. The game suffers from limited production values, but overall the formula worked as far as the setting goes. Heck, regiment-based RTS combat in fantasy settings has been working for ages, as proven by Dark Omen and Shadow of the Horned Rat.

As for the 20th century settings, I'm opposed to them for not fitting into the overall paradigm. Total War games have always been about, well, total war. Periods where everyone was at each others throat. WW1 and WW2 weren't like that for the most part. In both wars you had 2-3 major power blocks duking it out and then the occasional small country caught in the crossfire. Also, these wars were short as far as timeframes go, which limits what can be done my the overland metagame. You could do a World War and break turns into, say, weeks or something, but then you won't be doing much building. Perhaps a total war game would work if it covered the whole 20th century, replicating the general state of power at the start of the century and letting you take a country from there, but then we'd abandon all pretense of historical accuracy and the sheer possibilities would be huge. Also, you couldn't really do a limited theatre anymore, since by that time most of the world was participating. Sure, it might be done, but it wouldn't be a WW1 or WW2 game, it would be Total War: 20th Century. Individual World Wars would work as smaller scale campaigns (like Kingdoms or Napoleon), but I don't really care for those and would be disappointed if that were to happen.

Now, on to the futuristic settings. Here, you can make it fit into the general paradigm of the game. The European Union is already falling apart, the Arab world is rising, energy crisis is growing, etc. Add some to this (Africa starts to get its legs, major superpowers continue to decay, more competition over resources, etc.) and you easily set the stage for a near-future free-for-all, with multiple major powers and tons of smaller countries to get swept away in the fighting.

As for the combat, the focus of battle seems to be moving towards smaller scale engagements. Also, you no longer have huge groups of soldiers clumpet together. It could be done more along the lines of Company of Heroes, maybe on a slightly larger scale, but that general design direction. The problem with Empire was that the formation-based combat that the game engine supported just didn't mix well with gunpowder units. The whole thing felt too rigid. If the focus of warfare shifts to smaller groups of soldiers supported by advanced technology, it suddenly becomes manageable again.

And if you go in the direction of Spaceships'n'Mechs, you can do whatever the fuck you want, so that's hardly a problem.

I do agree that going for a Fantasy/Sci-fi setting would require them to establish a beliveable world and that's one thing I'd like to see them try. It could prove interesting.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Game balance would be a real pain to get right. Artillery would slaughter anything caught in the open and without artillery, the side with the most machine guns win. One of the reasons the russian front and the ottoman/austrian-hungarian front were so mobile was because these armies had a much lower ratio of machine guns per battalion then the french, british or german armies.

Apart from that and the potential for really boring gameplay ("So I have 3,000 dudes in this province and he has 3,000 in his. We are both dug in, so neither can attack... I guess I better skip to next turn.") I think that there are still other eras that could be done that would offer more variety and fun. Like the 30 year war, 3 Warring States period in China or even America: Total War, allowing you to play through the colonization of America and the wars between the native americans.

I agree. I've heard the, they should do WW1 idea before and I am not sold on it.

There are plenty of other more interesting wars and conflicts--small scale and large. One that I came up with, is Mesopotamia total war.

I'm talking the really early city states, their wars. It would feel a bit like Rome total war, but the tech is a bit different. Mercenaries are very important, and come from all sorts of tribes with differing armaments/morale/speed/special abilities. As this is more city state focused and less country focused, the development of the city could be greater emphasised, and the type of ruler you want to be implemented. I'd like to see the option to make units, to choose how much armour, training, weapon type to pump out of your city state, with mercenaries being more convenient, but not local or that reliable. So, do you create a theocracy, do you focus on trade and make a merchant populous, military tradition--Shogun 2 experimented with this sort of thing. These early experiments and the choices they made (Sargon's tyranny, Hammurabi's code of laws) influenced the later civilisations greatly.

And! Since we don't know much about early Mesopotamia, they could really add a random factor. So yes, the land between the rivers is known, the factions there are set, but as you spread out, you don't just encounter rebel tribes, no, you encounter smaller city-states trying to set themselves up, also adapting to the time, trying to sort out agriculture, caste systems, military strategy. And make it randomly generated, so no game is the same, and holding the centre is key, but the outside is not insignificant. Possible barbarian rushes, Egyptian invasions, plenty of events, threats to your rule and the rule of your neighbours. Make it as exciting as the Conan books, as just as much intrigue and violence. The birth of the first city-states.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

let's face it, gunpowder ruined warfare.

I know! How unexciting is it?

Playing defensive armies in shogun mp, heavy in guns, defensive yari and bow monks is incredibly boring. They want to sit back, shoot me to death and take no risk. It is a shameful display.

So yes, more ideas pre-firearms.

 

[Antari]

The Total war engine doesn't lend itself to firearms very well. They'd have to completely redesign things if they were going to leave spears and swords behind and go straight for guns.

 

[Blunderboy]

SNIP

Just because you can do something, it doesn?t mean that you should do it.
Frankly, at risk of sounding rude, there are plenty of games that already do these things and personally (and I?m sure I?m not alone in this) I enjoy Total War games so much exactly because of the historical settings.
Setting it in a period that holds no interest for me, or in the future rather ruins that magic for me, and reduces them to middling RTS game.

 

[Jandau]

SNIP

Just because you can do something, it doesn?t mean that you should do it.
Frankly, at risk of sounding rude, there are plenty of games that already do these things and personally (and I?m sure I?m not alone in this) I enjoy Total War games so much exactly because of the historical settings.
Setting it in a period that holds no interest for me, or in the future rather ruins that magic for me, and reduces them to middling RTS game.

I'm sorry you disagree with me, but that's your right. Just as it's my right to think this would be a good thing. Also, I'd just like point out that your post implies quite heavily that the only thing that stands between Total War games being "middling RTS games" is the historical setting, which is another thing I can't agree on. Total War games are great on their own and that's why I started talking about applying their paradigm to a broader spectrum of settings.

Finally, there aren't "plenty of games that do these things", there are very few of them. Which is why I wouldn't mind Total War doing these things...

 

[Trillovinum]

Well, no... There were so few involved parties.

I mean, even if different nations were involved, half the conflict was between the Germans (and at times Italians) verse the allies. It's not like you could be the leader of Austria and somehow end up owning all of Europe.

British Empire
France
Russian Empire
Belgium
Italy (they fought for the allies in the first world war just so you know)
Americans
(I'm probably forgetting some here)

Germany
Austria-Hungary (a big country by the way)
Ottoman Empire

(I wouldn't say these aren't enough factions. plus the possibility remains to add in countries that stayed neutral (like the Netherlands or Switzerland))

and about your point of not being able to dominate Europe with Austria.In Rome total war the Gauls didn't dominate yet under my rule they did. and In medieval II the Venetians never built an empire in the Americas yet under my rule they did.(that's part of the charm of total war games.)

But to get to the original point of this thread. I don't see why not. Though it shouldn't be solely about world war I it could easily be set in that time period with that technology.

 

[Wolfram23]

You guys might want to read Fall of Giants by Ken Follet. Makes WWI sound like the most interesting thing ever lol. Yeah, there was a lot of static trench warfare stuff, but there was a LOT more going on than that.

I think for the game to work it would have to jump around a lot. French front, Russian front, Austrian front, etc.

 

[Trillovinum]

Well, no... There were so few involved parties.

I mean, even if different nations were involved, half the conflict was between the Germans (and at times Italians) verse the allies. It's not like you could be the leader of Austria and somehow end up owning all of Europe.

Not to be petulant or mean, but there were quite a few parties involved. The UK Commonwealth, France, Germany, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, The Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire and Italy all played quite significant parts in the war. That's 7 different factions right there. Add to that the many smaller nations like Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and medium nations like Spain and you've got quit a roster just for the European theater.

Why is Belgium in the group with the neutral states? They fought with the allies.
Just thought I should mention that.

 

[Kukakkau]

No, simply no

You can't make an exciting game out of deploy in trench and wait for the grind to end. You need an era where battles occur at a fast rate and involve moving your men to positions of an advantage

That and there isn't exactly a wealth of unit types you could have. It would be riflemen, riflemen, machine gun, riflemen

 

[Kukakkau]

First person shooter?

No.

RTS? I'm pretty sure there are a few.

Maybe as an RTS but not really as an FPS. The guns were crap, the charges were suicidal and half of the time you would die from a shell or gas. Now a flight simulator...that might work.

We've had CIVIL WAR first-person-shooters; I don't really see why a WWI game would be that difficult to make and sell.

Though ti be true to the actual conflict I think a strategy style of gameplay would fit better.

Right to respond to all three quotes - the total war series is not an FPS it is an RTS game

 

[Blunderboy]

SNIP

Just because you can do something, it doesn?t mean that you should do it.
Frankly, at risk of sounding rude, there are plenty of games that already do these things and personally (and I?m sure I?m not alone in this) I enjoy Total War games so much exactly because of the historical settings.
Setting it in a period that holds no interest for me, or in the future rather ruins that magic for me, and reduces them to middling RTS game.

I'm sorry you disagree with me, but that's your right. Just as it's my right to think this would be a good thing. Also, I'd just like point out that your post implies quite heavily that the only thing that stands between Total War games being "middling RTS games" is the historical setting, which is another thing I can't agree on. Total War games are great on their own and that's why I started talking about applying their paradigm to a broader spectrum of settings.

Finally, there aren't "plenty of games that do these things", there are very few of them. Which is why I wouldn't mind Total War doing these things...

It's rather hard to get my points across fully when I'm posting in secret.
But yeah, as cordial as this has been, I suspect it's time to just agree to disagree and move on, lest this become a flame war.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

no. too static.
also too many diseases.
having half your units die of trench fever would piss people off, especially when they can't control their units.

Why is Belgium in the group with the neutral states? They fought with the allies.
Just thought I should mention that.

belgium was officially neutral.
they got sneak-attacked by the germans.

 

[Vivi22]

You can't make an exciting game out of deploy in trench and wait for the grind to end. You need an era where battles occur at a fast rate and involve moving your men to positions of an advantage

As myself and others have already mentioned, the idea that WW1 was nothing but trench warfare is a popular misconception. During the last two years of the war they were very much laying the groundwork for the sort of infantry tactics prevalent in later wars like WW2.

 

[Blunderboy]

You can't make an exciting game out of deploy in trench and wait for the grind to end. You need an era where battles occur at a fast rate and involve moving your men to positions of an advantage

As myself and others have already mentioned, the idea that WW1 was nothing but trench warfare is a popular misconception. During the last two years of the war they were very much laying the groundwork for the sort of infantry tactics prevalent in later wars like WW2.

That's true. But a TW game spanning only two years is not going to go down well.
Hell I feel weird only having 50 years in Empire.