Creative Assembly Now Has No Excuse For Holding Off On America:Total War

[SacremPyrobolum]

After seeing the carnage in the newest expansion pack (Shogun 2 Fall of the Sumeria) I think that I would not be far off in saying that the next project will focus on the American Civil War.

But not just North America, I'm talking Mexico, South America, Canada, as well as the Caribbean.

The technology is all their and so are a lot of the models, now all it should take is a few years!

What do you think? Would you like Total War to explore this technology period more and from more angles?

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Personally, not really. To me, it just mostly just amounts to replaying the same thing I did in this expansion but with different colored paint. I know some people would enjoy that, but I personally would love to see them go in a totally different direction.

 

[SckizoBoy]

You could've given your thread title a better TW title...

Still, the States: Total War has both a better ring to it and has more nuances of struggle. I'd view with some tentativeness, primarily because I can't see the unit roster being that good (probably even worse than N:TW, especially with cavalry), the strategic gameplay is going to be boring as hell if you're not CSA or US and only with Mexico are theatres really going to coincide and even then, not to any real degree.

That said, some of the battles would be interesting, though the ACW would suffer even more than previously portrayed wars because the historical scenarios will have a woefully small unit count on-screen. Where all current titles have been between a factor of 5-20 out, this time, I see it being up to two orders of magnitude out for a lot of the significant battles which sort of kills the experience. Also, apart from Sherman & Lee, the ACW commanders had very little tactical imagination (and even those two are very easily overshadowed by many others of the same era, particularly Prussians). I think I'd only show interest for one thing: the Battle of Hampton Roads (and even then, purely for the novelty).

Having said that, I'd reckon that Das Reich: Total War would make a much better game, though following so closely behind N:TW, I wouldn't suppose that a Euro-centric game of the Industrial era is what TWfans would necessarily want... myself notwithstanding, of course.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

You could've given your thread title a better TW title...

Still, the States: Total War has both a better ring to it and has more nuances of struggle. I'd view with some tentativeness, primarily because I can't see the unit roster being that good (probably even worse than N:TW, especially with cavalry), the strategic gameplay is going to be boring as hell if you're not CSA or US and only with Mexico are theatres really going to coincide and even then, not to any real degree.

That said, some of the battles would be interesting, though the ACW would suffer even more than previously portrayed wars because the historical scenarios will have a woefully small unit count on-screen. Where all current titles have been between a factor of 5-20 out, this time, I see it being up to two orders of magnitude out for a lot of the significant battles which sort of kills the experience. Also, apart from Sherman & Lee, the ACW commanders had very little tactical imagination (and even those two are very easily overshadowed by many others of the same era, particularly Prussians). I think I'd only show interest for one thing: the Battle of Hampton Roads (and even then, purely for the novelty).

Having said that, I'd reckon that Das Reich: Total War would make a much better game, though following so closely behind N:TW, I wouldn't suppose that a Euro-centric game of the Industrial era is what TWfans would necessarily want... myself notwithstanding, of course.

That must explain why I was rejected from the Ensemble Studio's marketing department...

 

[SckizoBoy]

If they made that, then it would without a doubt be the very best thing ever made. No, really, I'd stand up and shout "FUCK YEAH!" if they announced that they were making it. I have been longing for a Total War game about the American Civil War ever since I first played Medieval II.

They need to make it!

I don't mean to undermine your enthusiasm, but I really have to ask: why?

From a military innovations point of view, the ACW did only one thing of significance: introduce railroad transportation to the logistics/army movement side of affairs, but that's difficult to portray in the TW system and even if it could be, the balance would be a major issue. There aren't many factions that had a vested interest in the ACW and while you'd have smaller players in the surrounding territories and perhaps the Brits in Canada or the Mexicans, they just weren't involved.

And there is no longer any variety to be gained from battle-gameplay beyond the namedropping. True, you can say the same of E:TW, N:TW and TW:S2, but you had the sheer scope (which brought variation with it anyway), natural untenability of every starting position (after a fashion) and a rich aesthetic/cultural curiosity respectively (as well as fucking awesome expansions... at least for the most part). No disrespect to the era, but I cannot see a game of the ACW for TW being anything more than an informative retrospective than an enjoyable experience, case in point the Battle of Antietam - the culmination of a dangerous game of cat-and-mouse that Lee played, but the battle itself was nothing more than two days of Union assaults (which were initially rather timid considering their overwhelming numerical superiority) and Confederate holding actions.

In so saying, virtually all the major battles of the ACW were attritional and many lasted for several days with 100000+ combatants on each side. And this is a consequence of it being a war of strategic manoeuvres, operational level contact and no tactical merit, as opposed to most of the other games whose wars they seek to emulate were based on straight up strategic movement, operational manoeuvres and tactical trickery.

*shrug*

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I just want Medieval III.

America? Yeah, well, whatever. I'd play it.

Forget Medieval, 2 is still the best Total War game ever made. We need a reboot for Rome.

 

[Counter_Southpaw]

We need a new Rise of Nations. Seriously, best RTS of all time.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Who is Ensamble, and what do they have to do with Total War?

I'll toss my vote, for what it is worth, in with Medieval or Rome 2. Empire was my first TW game, and I absolutely love it. Still, that made it really hard to get into Rome or Medieval, as both felt like a huge step backwards. I love both settings historically, so it would be nice to see them updated so I can really enjoy them.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Who is Ensamble, and what do they have to do with Total War?

Maybe the OP's French? *shrug*

I'll toss my vote, for what it is worth, in with Medieval or Rome 2. Empire was my first TW game, and I absolutely love it. Still, that made it really hard to get into Rome or Medieval, as both felt like a huge step backwards. I love both settings historically, so it would be nice to see them updated so I can really enjoy them.

I sincerely hope you mean 'huge step backwards' to mean 'historical timeline' as opposed to 'standards' because most hardcore TWers around here will preach to hell and back that Rome & Med2 are (still) head and shoulders above Empire.

We need a new Rise of Nations. Seriously, best RTS of all time.

While I agree with you to a certain extent, part of the draw of the TW series is the combination of strategic, operational and tactical considerations, even if it is a little simplistic (though I doubt I'll ever see a truly militarily faithful RTS/TBS/RTT game in my lifetime). Most of the Sid Meiers-esque games are purely strategic, with the occasional operational issue that can be easily dealt with by perhaps a couple turns' worth of patience. The TW series is the only series of the last decade that has combined in the player the need for strategic forethought, administrative ability and tactical acumen.

This is part of the reason I view the ACW as poor 'TW' material, you just need administrative ability. While it is a politically rich and informative period, I can't help think as a gamer that it wouldn't be any fun to play, since diplomacy (which played a much larger part than anyone is willing to give credence for) generally sucks in TW games and both the historical strategy (with the exception of Sherman's March to the Sea... I think) and tactics were a case of "there's the enemy, get within gunshot range and pull the trigger". Makes the RTT aspect kind of void...

Because it is an incredibly fascinating conflict from an era of history that I'm most interested in. Besides, it's not like nobody ever managed to make a good game about that period before. Sid Meier's Gettysburg was the shit!

Oh yes, I agree that it was a fascinating conflict and is a good illustration of humanity in a melting pot (i.e. its various facets). However, the ACW was more a demonstration of the strength of a powerful economy, fuelled by industry than one of skill at arms, which is generally what the TW titles are about. I'd definitely agree that it would make excellent RTS material, but not good TBS/RTT gameplay. Modern operational warfare was effectively founded in the ACW since there were large armies that could be moved very quickly and the newfound capability to engage in virtually any environs. This was why Sherman's neckties buggered the South so badly. Loss of the railroads meant they could only move as fast as they could march.

So, while I agree that ACW would make great game material (I'm thinking a dedicated RTT or RTS that plays out two separate grand campaigns, ending in victory, sort of like Supreme Commander, on an ever expanding map, only with the option of several starting positions so that you get to play as a number of generals) I don't think it'd make a good TW game (he says for the umpteenth time... sorry...).

And it's not like I'm actually interested in replaying how the war actually turned out. I don't play Total War to relive history, I play Total War to rewrite it!

Heh... don't I know it. E:TW as Prussia = German Unification in 1740! To be fair, who doesn't? But I suppose my point is that the variation of previous titles doesn't lend itself to this war since there are only really two results (three at a stretch, but the third plain sucks and you'd continue playing anyway): CSA gains independence; Union brings the South to heel. I think it'd be too much of an effort for developers to shoehorn the French & British in (historical plausibility and you'd threaten to turn it into a world war that it wasn't). On the other hand, a game about the American Revolution (e.g. Revolution: Total War) wouldn't have these geo-political issues (wrt historical accuracy).

What I'm surprised about is that no-one AFAIK has sought to compare the American Civil War with the Wars of German Unification. They occurred within a ten-year period (1861-1871) and yet they were so very different beasts. But I don't mean this from a political perspective, because that's a given. Since this is a TW thread, I can't think of two more starkly different conflicts that took place so close to each other in history. And given the choice of the two, the Creative Assembly would most definitely pick the European theatre (and I mean no disrespect to American history when I say that). It's just that so much more is viable: the central campaign is that of Prussia; playable faction - Austria, playing for the Grossdeutschlandloesung; playable faction - France, weak at first thanks to the July Revolution, but can build up its strength while Prussia is occupied with Denmark/Austria, playing for revenge; playable faction - Russia (but limit map capacity, even more than in N:TW), like France, recovering from the Crimean, has issues with the Ottoman Empire; playable faction - Ottoman Empire, has a beef with Russia, but wants to regain the Balkans. Here, there is so much more concurrent politics to be played with, though the only factor I can't seem to resolve is: Britain, who did virtually nothing during this period. Even Spain had issues since they almost had a Hohenzollern on the throne in 1862.

As for the military aspect, I'll conceded that it's got the same issues as an ACW TW game would have: armies too large, can't fit them on the screen, and the railroad transportation mechanic would have be done veeeeeeeeeeery carefully to work without being game-breaking. But the general approach to warfare in Europe at the time was manoeuvre, economy of force and speed of concentration (e.g. Koeniggraetz and Sedan). Despite there being almost three times as many combatants at Sedan than at Antietam, the casualty count was more or less the same. Regardless of unit resolution in the gameplay battle, there's both more at stake and a greater challenge for the player in his/her attempts to emulate the encirclement of von Moltke than the direct assaults of McClellan.

*shrug*

... *sigh* the travails for a Teutonophilic TWer!

 

[Aris Khandr]

I'll toss my vote, for what it is worth, in with Medieval or Rome 2. Empire was my first TW game, and I absolutely love it. Still, that made it really hard to get into Rome or Medieval, as both felt like a huge step backwards. I love both settings historically, so it would be nice to see them updated so I can really enjoy them.

I sincerely hope you mean 'huge step backwards' to mean 'historical timeline' as opposed to 'standards' because most hardcore TWers around here will preach to hell and back that Rome & Med2 are (still) head and shoulders above Empire.

I meant backward, and I meant it from a strictly mechanics/UI point of view. The UI for Shogun 2 or Empire is simply a lot more intuitive than it was for Medieval or Rome. I found myself futzing and fumbling around, trying to do things I could do instinctively in the more updated games, and the more primitive UI severely decreased my enjoyment of the titles.

 

[sb666]

Ummmmm Ensamble made Age of Empires Creative Assembly made Total War.

 

[SckizoBoy]

I sincerely hope you mean 'huge step backwards' to mean 'historical timeline' as opposed to 'standards' because most hardcore TWers around here will preach to hell and back that Rome & Med2 are (still) head and shoulders above Empire.

I meant backward, and I meant it from a strictly mechanics/UI point of view. The UI for Shogun 2 or Empire is simply a lot more intuitive than it was for Medieval or Rome. I found myself futzing and fumbling around, trying to do things I could do instinctively in the more updated games, and the more primitive UI severely decreased my enjoyment of the titles.

Ooooh... the keyboard settings for the campaign map, you mean? Yeah, I get that as well, though since I played RTW first (in this context, anyway), I got used to it, though there's an option to use FPS key-map layout that they defaulted for E:TW onwards.

And which mechanics did you think were bad? The only one that comes to mind is the avatar movement on the campaign map which had (seemingly) very large preset 'blocks' in R&M2, while being much more fluid in E&N, but I hardly consider that to be a detriment to the games. Or were you thinking of the building aspect of the gameplay?

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

I sincerely hope you mean 'huge step backwards' to mean 'historical timeline' as opposed to 'standards' because most hardcore TWers around here will preach to hell and back that Rome & Med2 are (still) head and shoulders above Empire.

I meant backward, and I meant it from a strictly mechanics/UI point of view. The UI for Shogun 2 or Empire is simply a lot more intuitive than it was for Medieval or Rome. I found myself futzing and fumbling around, trying to do things I could do instinctively in the more updated games, and the more primitive UI severely decreased my enjoyment of the titles.

Ooooh... the keyboard settings for the campaign map, you mean? Yeah, I get that as well, though since I played RTW first (in this context, anyway), I got used to it, though there's an option to use FPS key-map layout that they defaulted for E:TW onwards.

And which mechanics did you think were bad? The only one that comes to mind is the avatar movement on the campaign map which had (seemingly) very large preset 'blocks' in R&M2, while being much more fluid in E&N, but I hardly consider that to be a detriment to the games. Or were you thinking of the building aspect of the gameplay?

The most annoying thing for me in those older games were retraining troops.

Having to garrison an entire army and then retrain them for 2 turns each was a pain.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Building, refilling armies, movement. Pretty much the basics. It wasn't bad, per se, just so much less intuitive than what I was used to. And the lack of that familiarity detracted.

 

[omicron1]

I could go for a game covering the entire BC period. Ancient Sumer and Old Kingdom Egypt all the way through early Rome, anyone?

Barring that, a modular engine that they can just release time-period packs for (eventually culminating in a complete Total War simulation of all of history) would be just perfect.