Total War games?

[Cybsled]

Assassins being useless in Rome is ironic considering all they did was assassinate eachother back then ;p

Et tu, Total War?

[blindeye]

the ai does need some work. i really enjoy seeing 5 groups of 100 brutii attacking my 1000 strong germanic wrecking crew though. they dont even attack at once either, i really dont know what they are trying to accomplish but it is quite humorous. trying to reason with the ai is useless as well. you can have an empire down to 1 city and they still refuse to become a protectorate or my personal favorite: they'll sign a ceasefire if you give them their regions back.

[masteen]

I don't know how you can say that assassins are useless. They enable me to fight not just a 2 front, but 3 front wars.

Example from my latest campaign: I'm Scipii, so my first conquest is of course Sicily with a move into Carthage and Numidia. While my legions fight in Africa, my capital city pumps out assassins, flooding them into Gaul and Spain. A lot die, but the ones that reach the Carthaginian city in southern Iberia, are some deadly motherfuckers. This makes the transition from the African front almost instantaneous; no need to rebuild massive legions when there are no generals left to fight me.

[Lleauaric~EW]

Try out Rome: Total Realism

its a mod and its pretty cool

http://www.fileplanet.com/151342/150....0-Full-Client

[ChewieTobbacca]

There's a lot of promising RTW mods though.. Napoleonic Total War was a favorite of mine during MTW and I eagerly await the one for RTW to come out (when the expansion comes out)... they have middle earth total war and other mods as well too

And yes, without modification, the regular RTW AI is pretty bad.. I've always been amazed at how thousands of barbarians manage to be killed by a few sets of hastati

Actually as fun and unique the units in RTW are, I've always thought MTW was a bit better on units - while Christian, Orthodox, and Muslim armies all fought in different styles, at least the units were fairly straightforward - whenever two Christian armies met each other, you knew it would be a slug-it-out bloodbath type of war. WHenever you fought Islam armies, you expected horse archers and hit and run tactics.... unless you suddenly met Janissary Infantry and got whooped by the ultimate hit-and-run as well as slug-it-out infantry.

The AI in MTW isn't perfect either though - I remember I once planted around 30,000 soldiers in the same territory waiting for the Mongol Invasion - during the battle, I just hid my pikemen in the forest, and the enemy cavalry would be slaughtered in the woods while the cavalry archers fired futiley into the forest until they ran out of time. That same battle fought in open territory resulted in 27,000 enemy killed but 16,000 of my own lost.

[NoStem]

The Total War series has been a stoner gaming cornerstone for a long time now. Rome Total War is actually an anagram for Way Too Fucking Stoned.

[AngryGerbil]

None of the TW games are "perfect" or even close to it. But what they are is currently the best possible venue for people like me who are fascinated by strategic, logistic, and tactical warfare, and our desire to outlet this somehow. Many games have included 2 of the three facets. Civ is both logistic and strategic, but lacks in real tactics. Rise of Nations is big on tactics and has a pretty healthy dose of strategy, but is pretty weak on logistics.

My point is, is that the name of the game is fairly accurate. "Total war" means all three of these facets in one. In fact it means much more than that, such as political, but the three main factors in battles themselves are strategic, tactical, and logistic. Only the TW series has attempted to tackle all three at once in one game (not to mention making it fun to play).

So yeah, the TW series of games are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and since they are man-made video games there will always be some loophole that lets you win all the time. But still, I give them an "A" for effort and I truly hope "Rome" is not the last we hear of the TW series. All 3 games are "weak" when compared to "real life". But all 3 games are superb when compared to their competition.

I will admit that I am one of those guys who will buy almost anything with the "Final Fantasy" name attached to it. In that same light, I see it as a near impossibility that I do not buy the next game that has "Total War" attached to it. They are not perfect, but they are great games none-the-less.

[Millie]

I'm sure we haven't seen the last of the Total War games. They are big sellers and tend to win lots of industry awards.

Creative Assembly has already announced Spartan: Total Warrior for the PS2 and XBox. It's an action-based hack 'n slash in the vein of God of War, set in the aftermath of Rome: Total War.

I'm sure there's another Total War strategy game already in the works. The real question is what era they should go for that would offer the same depth as Feudal Europe/Japan or the Roman Empire. Maybe Egypt in its prime? Or a game focusing on the Mongols?

I think someone mentioned Napoleon earlier in this thread... I just don't think the Napoleon-era French have the same "badass factor" that Romans, samurai or medieval warriors do.

And then there's Alexander the Great. You could basically make a good Alexander-era game by retrofitting the Rome engine and setting it back a few hundred years.

[Runnen]

Originally Posted by Millie

Maybe Egypt in its prime?

Yeah, then you can have on one side the Egyptians with their armies, slaves, cavalries, catapults etc etc..

And on the other side the Jews led by Moses, who have almost no ressources or weapons but can summon the holy powers of God to part the seas and make fire rain upon the battlefield!

[ChewieTobbacca]

Well if they make a next Total War game it would either have to be smaller in focus or focus on the Napoleonic era given the type of game. We can't go towards war in the modern era (post Civil War) because it wouldn't be fought in the same style as the game (unless they radically change combat, but that would certainly lose some of the epic part of the game as there would no longer be massive army formations).

The first Total War game, Shogun, had a small focus and scale - namely feudal Japan and the Mongol Invasion. The other two Total War games, Medieval and Rome, had a gigantic focus and scale. Medieval (with Viking Invasion expansion) focused on Dark Ages Britain and then Europe from end of Dark Age to around the time of the Renaissance and introduction of gunpowder (as well as Mongols invading, though they weren't playable). Rome focused on a large time period as well, and with Barbarian invasions, they will have focused on that era from around 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. and the Dark Ages.

So basically the Total War games have covered from around 300 B.C. to 1500 A.D.

They will probably keep making Total War games, but they really only have a few options if they continue their trend, which is to make a lot of possible sides, a relatively large theater of combat, and lots of interesting sides. This is why i dont think Egypt in its prime would be a great candidate because Egypt was around for quite some time (since 3000 B.C.) and it never really faced many enemies at once after it was unified around 3000 B.C. They were pretty far ahead of the competition then. This would allow a pretty large spread of units from chariots to phalanxes to elephants, etc.


-Go smaller scale and focus on certain areas and periods, such as Greeks pre-Roman domination (say from Trojan War to Alexander the Great) - this would allow lots of interesting sides including Athens, Sparta, Troy, Macedonia, Crete, Thebes, etc. - by this way, you could also include ancient Egypt and other smaller civilizations around the eastern Mediterranean.

-Ancient China and that area of Asia - the best era would probably be before China was unified and was in numerous kingdoms and states. This would allow numerous sides. This probably wouldn't be as interesting as Greece though given that the sides weren't particularly radically different and it would be more like Shogun, with only a few units in the game.

-The largest scale Total War game would probably be one set in the Napoleonic Era, which could probably elapse from 1650 to 1880. It could also include colonial endeavours in the world but that would be a gigantic scale. If they simply focus on Europe and North Africa, you would maintain many familiar sides. The beginning units would be archaic units and the starting of large conscripted armies until mid 1700's to 1800's when large infantry armies, artillery, and cavalry were dominant. Potential includes expansion focusing on the America's from colonial days to the American Civil War. This would cover the largest scale and have large numbers of units but it would probably also be the most complicated.

[AngryGerbil]

I remember discussing this on some TW forum a while back. Most people agreed that the next TW game will likely either be ancient China or Napoleonic Europe. One thing most everyone agreed on though is that the last great war that the TW series could do is the American Civil War. The next major war after that was WW1 and it doesn't really lend itself to TW tactics since it was primarily just a trench war slug-fest battle of attrition more than anything. And then of course WW2 doesn't lend itself well to the TW franchise because it really lacked huge troop formations or concentrations and relied heavily upon naval and air power, two things TW is not known for. But even so, modern warfare is primarily conducted on the squad or company level anymore and individual soldiers are given much more autonomy and importance. Modern war is better represented by the FPS than the RTS, imo. (For example, late era Empire Earth isn't very fun imo).

I wouldn't mind seeing a TW game based on ancient China or even Chewie's idea of localized Greece. Or maybe even re-doing Shogun with newer graphics and a more in-depth world map and financial/political system.

But what I really want to see is Napoleonic style musket warfare done right. Like all the previous TW games you could still have different levels of troop training (militia vs army regulars etc) which affect their performance on the battlefield. And you could also have gear differences such as old flintlocks to primer cap ball/powder muskets all the way up to remington style lever action rifles (if they did the American Civil War). Which would of course affect range, accuracy, expense, and reliability. Or maybe I just want to see a swords-drawn cavalry charge hitting an artillery battery. Anyway, I vote for "Napoleon: Total War "or "America: Total War" next.

[ChewieTobbacca]

They already have a Napoleonic mod for Medieval TW, which was one of the best mods around (www.thelordz.co.uk though that site is down, its forums are up)

Artillery was of course a bit overpowered, massive artillery barrages at amassed troop formations = gg, but that can of course be balanced by terrain, forests, formations, and your own artillery

The main thing with the Napoleonic era is that it has a LOT going for it and it is honestly the last era of Total War which was fought on the massive army scale (war after the American Civil War increasingly became squad centered despite squad's operating in massive operations)

What it has going for it is that the fighting was fought in massive infantry formations in the open, it has a rich history behind it, there are a lot of sides one can choose from (Ottomans, Britain, Austria, Prussia, France, Spain, Russia, Poland, Denmark, etc. to name a few off the top of my head and a America centered campaign would easily have Union and Confederates) there is technological advance (from archaic longbowmen and pikes being used in conjuction with some firearms in mid 1600's to massive conscripted armies with better rifles of the 1800's), and there is a large range of units. Yeah it seems as though most armies would be fought with just the same type of infantry, but there were honestly a lot: Light infantry, Jaegers, all shades of Imperial Guard units, Hussars, Lancers, Dragoons, Line Infantry, Militia, to Confederate and Union soldiers from different states, and all types of artillery, etc.

It might not seem as epic as Rome seeing 20,000 infantry clash hand to hand but the game will probably be more tactical than Rome. At least with Shogun, Medieval, and Rome, the majority of fighting was done in melee range - it meant that while terrain is a huge advantage, such as hills and forests, the brunt of the fighting will be with the other guy in what *usually* becomes a massive mess of soldiers killing each other (I know, it doesn't sound like it should happen, but eventually that's what it comes down to - fighting in the center and moving to flanks usually ends up creating a long line of infantry fighting).

From my own experiences the mod for MTW and from studying history on the era, I can see how much more tactical it oculd be. The development of artillery that can cover the field, but one that flies at a low trajectory, will make taking heights important, but it would also be important to hide infantry in forests or in lower ground during staging so shells cannot hit easily or simply fly over. The formations you put your infantry in are also important - do you stagger and spread your infantry so you are not a concentrated target for artillery? Do you clump up in lines for a slug it out fight? Do you arrange up in squares to remove flanks against cavalry?

Cavalry also aren't as overpowered as they are in previous ages - no longer can one simply barrel heavy cavalry into a line of infantry and expect a win - infantry can now shoot at you before you get there, and then they still have bayonets ready which horses do not like to charge into... which reminds me, you also have to consider bayonet charges when ammo runs out and so on.

It would defenitly be fought different from any previous Total War but if anything, it can be as strategically and economically challenging and more tactically.

[ChewieTobbacca]

Oh and let's not forget that some great famous battles were fought in this period as well... Borodino, Austerlitz, Waterloo to Antietam, Gettysburg, etc.

[NoStem]

Originally Posted by Runnen

Yeah, then you can have on one side the Egyptians with their armies, slaves, cavalries, catapults etc etc..

And on the other side the Jews led by Moses, who have almost no ressources or weapons but can summon the holy powers of God to part the seas and make fire rain upon the battlefield!

That game would kick so much ass.

[Furism]

Assassins are pretty cool in Rome once you get them to level 6+. On higher difficulty levels, diplomats will try to corrupt your generals on a regular basis. With an Assassin around, you coul keep your Empire together.

Also, you should always use an Assassin in association with a Spy, so he doesn't get caught by an ennemy spy. And, well, killing a General is always a good thing since it makes the morale of the opposing army waaaay lower (so even their high end units will flee at some point).

However keep in mind two things : from my (short) experience with Assassins, their success chances cannot get higher than 95%. And from the 5% chances of missing, you've got 20% of chances that your Assassin will get caught and executed. I can tell you it hurts a LOT when you loose a level 11 Assassin when trying to kill a crappy diplomat you had 95% of chances to kill (think critical miss...).