Modern Total War Not Impossible, Says Creative Assembly

Recommended Videos

rdaleric

New member
Jan 22, 2009
309
0
0
WWI would be pretty good, especially if the game allowed you to play from the very beginnings of the conflict ( Empirical expansion etc.), and also didn't force you to use some of the same idiotic tactics used at the time.

However, I'm expecting Rome 2 to be the next game CA do. Though i'd love an original fantasy setting, but i doubt that will happen. Sigh I'll have to stick with the middle earth total war mod for that
 

Niveama

New member
Mar 23, 2009
13
0
0
Another problem with modern/WW1&2 total war is that warfare in these time periods is much less city centric than previously.

In that military forces did not base themselves in cities, yes there were many battles in and around those cities, but once the battles were over the forces did not take control of them and start producing military units from them.

This alot to do with the time-frame of modern war ie. generally less than 10 years vs the much longer time scales of previous wars. Additionally military units are much more specialised and trained out of population centres at military bases.

This would basically mean removing all incentive for taking cities in a Total war game. To me thats just not right.
 

Dectilon

New member
Sep 20, 2007
1,044
0
0
Niveama said:
Another problem with modern/WW1&2 total war is that warfare in these time periods is much less city centric than previously.

In that military forces did not base themselves in cities, yes there were many battles in and around those cities, but once the battles were over the forces did not take control of them and start producing military units from them.

This alot to do with the time-frame of modern war ie. generally less than 10 years vs the much longer time scales of previous wars. Additionally military units are much more specialised and trained out of population centres at military bases.

This would basically mean removing all incentive for taking cities in a Total war game. To me thats just not right.
To be fair, the way armies are created and maintained in the total war games isn't exactly how they were at the time either. On the command structure level (and on the battlefield too actually) Total War has never been very realistic, so inventing incentives to capture and hold cities wouldn't exactly be hard.
 

Lord Kloo

New member
Jun 7, 2010
719
0
0
WW1 would be with in reason for Total War as it still uses large scale imperialist combat tactics and lines of battle..

WW2 or anything post would be impossible and goes into the realm of action RTS like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War (1 & 2), because of the massive change in fighting tactics, blitzkrieg tactics and the division of command..

What I would like to see is one for 40k, Line combat for the imperial guard, necrons or tau, precision strikes and penetration tactics from the space marines, disorderly rushes from chaos and orks, and hit and run from the eldar.. the tyranids can just swarm over the battle field like always..
 

Nouw

New member
Mar 18, 2009
15,615
0
0
I think it'd be really difficult as Modern War is quite different from historical war.

Khushal said:
Can't see any way to make this work, modern warfare is too different from warfare in the middle ages, or the ancient kingdoms for the current system to work in any way. If they do this they would have to change everything - units, the mechanics, map, diplomacy and the economic system... Then they might as well call it something else then total war...

Just because we can do something doesen't mean we should.
/thread
 

FFHAuthor

New member
Aug 1, 2010
687
0
0
WWI Total War, nobody wants to touch it for RTS. It's that bridge between armies fighting in battles and armies fighting in continuous fronts.
 

Teddy Roosevelt

New member
Nov 11, 2009
650
0
0
This is so weird. I have actually spent lengths of time thinking, and subsequently planning out for my own benefit how such a game would work. I think I have come up with a very useful, if not complex method of pulling off a very realistic modern war game while sticking to the usual rhythm of Total War games. Unfortunately, I have never written it in one place, but it goes from the typical turn based grand strategy component to an in-depth and somewhat modified in-battle system, the setup for which, as usual, is based on the pay of the grand map, where armies are not only assembled, but various fortifications can be put together where needed, like a world builder that allows you to lay out defenses on a map of the area where the army is stationed, making field combat tactically sound.

In addition, the battles would involve a reserve system, were the player can call in reinforcements to maintain large scale battles, and such reserves would arrive via appropriate transport in appropriate lengths of time along appropriate transportation routes. I also have come up with another system for air support, which involves establishing air bases in the grand map and stationing aircraft formations in them, so targets can be hit outside of battle in the map to weaken forces, though in quasi-battle scenarios allowing the faction under attack to lay out his defenses to try and hit back at the aircraft, even if stealth aircraft are involved, since armies may fortify whether they are under attack or not. In battle, aircraft can be called in for precision strikes and for passive ground support presences, and with fuel and weapon supply taken into account, aircraft would fly to and from air bases in time spans dependent on the distance from the battlefield to the air base on the grand map.

The AI would have to be very improved, and the battlefields would ideally be much larger to accommodate troops spread over massive areas. In terms of the AI, in fact, I would like to see the ability to select one division or other high-tier unit in combat, break it down and give general orders to the medium units sizes, which could then fight general well independently while you see to another large group elsewhere and command it as you wish, while the other group can maintain its course of action relatively well.

I can't go through everything here. I'm quite certain that the ideas I've gone through would exceed the post size limit.
 

David Chesterfield

New member
Oct 25, 2011
2
0
0
DISCLAIMER: WALL OF TEXT INCOMING

Some of these posts have touched on good ideas.
I will say from the start that I think it's very ignorant and pessimistic to think the total war series needs to be limited to melee combat and nothing else. Tactical combat aside there's so much more to the total war series than the actual real-time combat bits. Hell medieval 2 was already one of my favorite games and I hadn't even fought one real-time battle, I just autoresolved the conflicts: the campaign mode alone drew me in. The word total war isn't context or time period-specific, and just because it's been well-established in melee so far does not mean it can't evolve or expand. Empire was a big experiment and I'd say CA pulled it off incredibly well. Sure the 18th century isn't exactly a historical period that makes people wet their pants and the combat is quirky at best because most people aren't too familiar with musketeer formations, moving line infantry around and using them in conjunction with obscure, specialized units like pikemen and cavalry. But on the whole for those willing enough to invest time into understanding the combat, I being one of them, it was rewarding, challenging and fun, with each unit having its role to play in the grander scheme of things.

On the whole, I'd say the key issue at hand is the real-time aspect and not the campaign aspect because it's easier to modify the campaign aspect to suit the time period in question. In my opinion the campaign mode for empire was just as fun and addicting as that of medieval, if maybe a little less creative because they removed the fun quirky bits like angents and their attributes and the possibility of an operation backfiring on you but introduced other new aspects like the ability to reform your government or fight for monopoly of trade theaters. So on the whole I'd say the campaign mode is a non-issue and trust CA will always find a way to adapt it almost flawlessly to the time period in question and keep it fun, entertaining, and addictive...I do have some things I'd love to see IF a modern one were in fact to be made but I'll save those for another post.

So with that we come to the real-time aspect and a few people seem to grasp what would be the ideal concept but I'm surprised no one's even mentioned the one game which in my opinion almost perfectly pulls off the idea of realistic modern warfare in an RTS and that is world in conflict. Aside from the concept that you can only specialize in one combat arm as part of a sort of A beats B which beats C which beats A sort of triumvirate and the fact that the role of infantry was considerably insignificant, the gameplay was flawless. Camera controls exemplary, units moved realistically but fast enough to keep things exciting and the pace manageable, the command points for air support idea was almost cathartically fun making things like tactical nukes usable and worked perfectly, the reinforcement system put you in the heat of the action without the long chore of base-building, on the whole it was just an excellent game. The only thing it lacked was that because of the combat arm system and the reinforcement points limiting factor you could never really control a big, combined forces army...the most you could ever really control at any one point was either 5 big armor tanks, 5 helicopters, a couple of infantry squads with some APC's, or a couple of artillery pieces with some mobile SAMS for defence and that spoiled the big conflict feeling somewhat. Now take away that limitation and factor in the total war concept of colossal armies. All of a sudden you're leading an entire company or even a battalion complete with hundreds of men, tanks, APC's, arty pieces and off-map support, perhaps in a field, a city, or wherever the conflict leads you. Both sides adapt to the environment, take cover while shooting, call in air strikes which if well-placed could decimate half the guy's army and win you the game but also have the potential to just be a huge waste of resources, just like in CoH, units are specialized and deployed together as part of a combined arms force...dunno about you guys but that sounds like a spectacular fight to me. Add to that the profoundly detailed, realistic and fun and rewarding micromanagement of infantry which company of heroes had, with squads, snipers and weapons teams moving in and working together through cover, buildings and pretty much every environmental manifestation to accomplish a goal, capture a piece of ground or just kill some enemies, add in the tanks and vehicle support which company also integrated very well into the infantry play but get rid of the base-building element of that game, add in the wide area and excellent off-map support elements of world in conflict, finally escalate things to the total war scale with hundreds of units on screen and maybe factor in a few other good things from that game like the presence of a general or commander who inspires your men and bestows bonuses on troops and units and I believe you will have, what I argue and hope will become, one of the finest RTS's ever created. It would be extensive and cover every aspect of modern warfare in a way which integrates them all together as one big combined arms war effort of tremendous scale, from the cover and shooting aspect of the infantry to the armored blitzkrieg to the tactical off-map support element. All you'd need then would be a good HUD and interface system in order to allow actual control of such a large-scale operation, but starcraft has already pulled this off to an even greater extent because in that game you also have to worry about logistics and actually getting your units to the fight so I see no reason why it would be a problem. Combine all the above elements together properly and I believe you'd have a jewel of an RTS game which would be a godsend for the real-time element alone, not to mention how cool the addition of the incredible campaign element that the total war series is already famous for would make it...
Oh, and did I mention there could also be a naval combat element?? More on that in another post.

I apologize for the wall of text but this idea has been sort of my daydream project for months now as I'm a fan of knights and history but also love technology and modern warfare and believe it's been severely underplayed outside of the FPS genre.
I know there are a lot of things I haven't addressed but I don't want to make the post any longer than it needs to be. Feedback is more than appreciated, so long as it's constructive.
 

sabrebadboy

New member
Oct 28, 2011
1
0
0
I think it would work. I like all themes and many like me do aswell. It would take a lot of work though. But don't go ruining the franchise with futuristic warfare or otherwise, judging by the response from the critics on here, people will lose interest. Leave futuristic games to other companies.
 

Michael Batty

New member
Mar 14, 2012
2
0
0
The Admiral said:
Screw a modern Total War. I want Middle-earth Total War.
Really? You live under a stone you say?
Well its called Total War: Third Age, look it up. Excellent modification for Medieval 2.
 

Michael Batty

New member
Mar 14, 2012
2
0
0
I'm currently in the making of my own mod for Medieval 2, which expands the game from the original game upto modern day.

You can advance through the 11th century up until the year 2000 + (after that though there will be no more upgrades, etc) I've completed all the unit and building info & modifications.
I'm currently working on modding the terrain into a full world map so you will be able to play as any country from medieval times and as you progress the name of the factions, logos, banners etc will change.
The AI changes as the years progress - Although I'm still working on the program to do this.

I'm getting through it, just taking a long time as I'm working by myself on this project.
I'm also working on ways to not make it repetitive or boring as most people have said in this forum, it wouldn't work as modern day armies don't use 100's of men on a battlefield, but I
am working on it, stay tuned for that one.

I'm keeping it as historically accurate as possible with world events such as missions like Germany is asked to invade/attack Poland in 1939.

I've added close to 800 units to the original roster all with individual skins, including Samurai's, Ninjas, Commando's, Tanks, Helicopters, Fighter Jets, Battleships, and Sniper teams. All with individual abilities and skills.

As well as units I've added almost 600 new buildings again not including the original list from Medieval 2,including space stations and unique buildings such as Big Ben, the Sphinx, Eiffel Tower, etc.
Also - both units and buildings from the original lists have been modded to be more historically accurate and balanced.

As a side note, if there is anything ANYONE wants to add as a suggestion, please do so.
 

Aaron Irvin

New member
Nov 17, 2014
1
0
0
Well it's not as hard as people think war leaders has done it already just not as good as CE could do it