Yeah the modding community needs to get on that, bring together total wars battles and something like crusader kings. I know crusader kings modders made something where you can play bannerlord battles linked with your crusader kings game.
I'd personally like an empire 2 (from the 1600s to 1750s ish) but any setting will be good IF the gameplay is good... the gameplay makes the game, not the setting.
Well said, completely agree. The setting exists to package the gameplay, but if the gameplay sucks, the game sucks. On the other hand, a game with great gameplay can survive even if the setting sucks.
I submit exibit A - Empire Total War has terrible gameplay due to the bugs, but its still more popular a game than Napoleon Total War due to the Setting. The setting is all that game has and people still play it more than NTW and its the second most popular game people want next
@@merlin4084 I wouldn't say empire has terrible gameplay... it fails at a lot of things (due to never truly being finished) but there are more gameplay options than most other total war games. Trade and economy are actually a factor, naval combat is quite good, the land combat can range from terrible to great and there are some good mods that add a whole lot of other depth. The large map isn't setting, that's a gameplay choice, and I am willing to bet that if napoleon had that map then no one would play empire. That's my take anyways
@@thesiberianproductions3748 Napoleon and Attila suffer from the same problem, that they're separate games when they should have been expansions to Empire and Rome 2. Napoleon suffers from one extra problem that Atilla doesn't. The campaign is boring to play, as its just a stripped down version of Empire. Napoleon couldn't have a larger map due to the setting it was depicting (Napoleon never went or thought global between 1805 and 1815). So a world map wouldn't make sense. Its a campaign expansion that undeservedly got to be its own game.
Totally agree, what we see nowadays is just flashy and quick, not strategy battle lines or substance although there are very good graphics and concepts, goes to say gameplay is everything
Whatever the setting, I crave for the concept of supply lines done right in a total war opus. It's so infuriating to see full armies sneak into your territory and just have a grand old fun, when realistically they should be missing food, ammunition, shelter, and even orders from the top.
Totally agree. I've been bitching about this for a long time about Stellaris, which has been my main play game for several years. But I was playing a bit more Empire TW lately and I wished for it there too. I would like to play a sneaky Guerilla army who wears down enemy supply lines while my main column moves in. Almost no game has that!
What you describe sounds a lot like the content of the DEI MOD for Rome II. Personally I feel that mod changes the game far too much, & I would find it way too frustrating feeling like I was getting bogged down with all that. Don't get me wrong I can see your point but I doubt it would be for me, sorry.
That would work just fine for most ancient armies (as they were less reliant of supply lines than their more modern counterparts), but armies of the Napoleonic era and beyond can’t pull that kind of shit.
@@FrankCastle-tq9bz even medieval and earlier armies need to eat. I agree they can forage, but this kind of activity takes time and then they should move slower (the pillage stance of Warhammer TW is nice in this regard, except it shouldn't be required only to cross cursed lands and mountain passes)
I would Love WW1 or we could build up from what they did in Troy and make a Bronze Age Total War. I do agree between the World Map of Empire, Supply lines of Troy and 3k, and Diverse mechanics of Warhammer they could make the game amazing. I would be interested in how they would divide the theaters of war.
A Victorian Total War game would be great! However, it would only work if you were able to intertwine historical events such as the Crimean War, the German and Italian Wars of Unification, and the American Civil War into the fold.
I love the history behind the two World Wars... but the first World War was the first large scale conflict that was not fought and won/lost in single battles (like the battle of Austerlitz, where Napoleon defeated a massive coalition force and effectively won the war) but along the whole front. Total War warfare is based on 1v1 single battle army clashes and sieges. It´s the same problem I have with playing the 1604 mod for Hearts of Iron IV, the playstyle just feels so wrong. I just think that the Total War series really shines in every era from the bronze age up until the napoleonic wars, but everything closer to the present seems just unfitting to me.
Good point, however trench warfare only just developed when the Western front went into stalemate. WW1 was more a mixture between single battles and a large scale front. Also due to the AI buffs the games always felt like fighting through masses of enemy armies to gain piece by piece more land. There was never an Gaugamela, Austerlitz or Königgrätz in TW games. In addition, the latest games always had a form of crisis event built into it. One could do the same in a WW1 TW where it triggers the trench warfare implementing a bunch of control points that need to be captured before your armies can advance into enemy territory. Perhaps, a first loss in battle would not lead to an army retreat depending on your supply lines and you would need to fight the battle again under different circumstances (The first battle transforms the battle ground through destruction or the winner gains an important landmark on the battlefield). It would also make sense to increase the amount of armies you can sustain or perhaps add an replenishment pool to each army which doesn't take part in a battle but could greatly recover losses :)
@@liamjm9278 I could see them balancing gas weapons by having them be affected by the weather. High winds or rain on the battlefield? Then your gas could dissipate too quickly, or drift back in your direction. Not to mention that "gas masks" would just be a stance you can place infantry in, like a shield wall or phalanx.
I think you mean tanks. Tanks allowed the British, French and Americans to start taking ground without suffering the enormous losses incurred in earlier battles. You can bet it would be a rush to develop the tank and then steam roll the trenches. and probably end up being totally broken. But I still love it anyway and yeah I would totally steam roll the Germans with Tanks or maybe the British and French or hell maybe be the Japanese steam roll the Germans and Russians in Manchuria.
I feel like WWI is such a largely unexplored and underappreciated time period in terms of video games. We already have shooters like BF1, Verdun and Tannenburg, so an RTS game I think would be a really nice addition to the WWI set games.
It doesn't need to be historically accurate, it only need to be historically authentic to make it a selling point. Any time point in history is interesting, but if a 'teacher' is boring, it still going to be boring. Same with the game, it needs to be engaging enough that it will make you feel like you're really in that time period.
I find this concept would be interesting, but would love most to see a pike and shot representation in Total War first. They've already done muskets in the Shogun and Empire games, and pikes/phalanxes in many of the others. Why not cover the 1500-1600s?
I’m more skeptical about how they’d be able to simulate the grand scale stagnation and one or two miles worth of changes on the front line that come with trench warfare.
Elder Scrolls: Total War, Lord of the Rings: Total War and Tiberium: Total War. I know the first two were made by mod makers, but I'd really like an official CA take.
The idea of having your battalion of men charge out of a legitimate trench to attack the enemy trench and be mowed down by machine gun fire would be crazy to see in “Total War” game style. Like you said the details would need to be on point along with a boost in the AI otherwise it would require massive numbers of men to gain ground every single time not just once in a while
Yep, also each unit comprises of dozens of soldiers in other total war games. It would be nice if there were a change, maybe smaller number of people per unit, but have more units per stack, or when charging through the frontlines a single unit would spread out thin instead of being clustered like what we see in other TW games
@@kyfernandez3057 the WW1 mod is awesome in the sense that it was at least made and gave a taste of this idea but the trenches didn’t look like actual trenches that was the first thing I noticed, I’m sure game play would need to be improved upon
Well, it _did_ require massive amounts of men. Although not all battles in WW1 were drawn out stalemates, and there were mobile phases as well. Edit. Oh I get it, in the unit sense. Yeah, they should be smaller units in a larger stack.
Having independent unit's with it's own AI per entity on a total war scale is not gonna happen for quite some time, the amount of processing power needed would be massive.
Units would get decimated under artillery/machingun fire, a reinforcement mechanic along with a more robust supply chain mechanics would need to be implemented. Regarding the resources, they could be: steel, petroleum, rubber, gold, iron and concrete along with regular money. love your content by the way
@@jacopofolin6400 That's not true. Navies changed from coal to oil since it was significantly better a fuel source. Planes needed it and so did tanks. Coal was more to keep the lights on and basically everyone had a fuckload of it, hence why it's not in HOI.
@@lokenontherange Yes and no. I mean, what you say about oil is right, but coal was still very much a disputed ressource. It was essential in the transformation of iron and steel. The Ruhr wasn't occupied for no reason after the war. It was the biggest industrial area in Europe thanks to coal. Coal is what made Southern Belgium and Northern France rich AF at the time, and bankrupt in the following decades. In the 50's it's coal and steel that laid the frame for the modern EU, with the ECSC.
It would also allow for a research tree that would change the feel of the battles throughout the campaign with all the innovation in weaponry and tactics in that era. Ever since Empire TW technology felt kind of dull and only improved stats rather than the actual warfare. I loved how in Empire TW the innovation of the bayonet or other fire styles completly changed battle tactics.
It must happen at somepoint since the first time i played rome 1 in my smollboi times i was putting full archer armys against eachother imagining it was a world war battle (my imagination was a lot larger those days) now knowing total war im sure this must be possible and i long for this and the dlc and the tech tree and the grimy battles yes please
I know its cliché but I really want medieval 3. Updated graphics in one of the best total war settings would be great. The mods for Attila look amazing but an official game would be awesome.
I don't get this new age hype for old games being constantly remade just with prettier graphics. What's the point? The visuals were never what made Medieval 2 so amazing.
It’s not just a matter of visuals but also the improved gameplay aspects that’s emerged out of the industry since then. There are numerous gameplay elements that exist in modern tw games that would enrich the med2 experience. Even if you just look at what mods have been able to do in those games, often times their hands are tied by archaic engine limitations that stop them from properly implementing certain things. Sometimes they end up finding weird work arounds, but they usually end up really clunky.
idk about anyone else but i gotta say the 1 thing i miss more then anything else from MTW2 is the unit upgrade system i mean actually seeing differences in models based on the level of skill there equipment was crafted at was a big thing to me
MC Mark Markson not just graphics, functioning gameplay useable walls, infantry that works!!! Real age military tactics, brutal AI, maps both Land and City actually enjoyable and make sense
I'm very skeptical of the idea that trench warfare would be engaging in a real time sense without a number of changes that deviate from the actual course of WW1. I don't find spending many turns building up a large army only to lose it in a few minutes in a trench grind very engaging. That kind of conflict works for something like grand strategy where it isn't important to focus on battles in great detail. Maybe if there were concessions made to change the nature of trench warfare, or introduce things like tanks earlier to make it easier to break through deadlocks. I certainly agree that it would make for a great setting, just look at BF1, but I think the core concept is a bit flawed from the get go. Victorian combat maybe would work better. The transition between Napoleonic to Victorian combat definitely allows for the kind of large scale infantry battle that could evolve into the hint of what WW1 would become.
One of the reasons I find World War 1 so fascinating is that it's a turning point in military history. The war started out very much like an 19th century war with armies maneuvering and taking ground, but of course weapons technology had far outpaced 19th century military tactics and after failing to capture Paris the Germans dug in and after a series of battles the front became static. In 1916 both sides attempted to break the deadlock. The Germans at Verdun and the British at the Somme both ending in bloody stalemate. By the time the US entered the conflict the war had completely changed. The Germans moved all there divisions from the Eastern Front to the West and the British and French were nearly pushed back into the sea and then the with the introduction of American troops the tide turned and the Germans were pushed almost all the way back to Germany. All of that would be hard to model into a Total War game but if they could pull it off it would be extremely fascinating and I would definitely play it.
Personally, I’m dying for a pike and shot Total War game. The closest we’ve gotten was very very early game Empire, very very late game Medieval, and maybe sort of Shogun 2 kind of slightly perhaps?
Soldiers did formations in WW1. A battlefield would mostly consist of bomb your enemy before you attack, blow the whistles and rush into no mans land, and then over run the trench eventually. I think it could be pulled off in total war and I think it would probably work out like a siege battle. I think this game would pull off the political system very well too although I do think it would work better in a ww2 game (the political system).
@@MourningStar67 That isn't true after 1915. By that point creeping barrages to cover advancing troops and assault tactics where small squads would work together to provide supporting fire across no-man's-land had been developed by that point. Its far more complex then formations and just charging across no-man's-land. Assualt tactics after 1917 were not so different then those of WW2.
@@bobsemple6537 well don't have to be too realistic, Just Watch the mod ww1 on Napoleon, Is still funny. If you make somethig like this but Better made and no bugs
@@bobsemple6537 they kind of have something they could do for that - some games did have a ‘fire and advance’ ability - it wasn’t very useful, but if they used a similar idea to that they could probably pull off something fairly accurate
@@bobsemple6537 This isn't even true by 1914. There were countries that tried it but since men aren't suicidal and officers aren't actually retarded it was instantly abandoned whenever it was used. Heck, the main reason why lines bogged down so much is that conscripts and civilian volunteers didn't have the training to keep moving under fire.
I remain a staunch advocate for a TW set in 16th-17th century Asia. You have a large map with lots of different culture, weapon varieties, and the introduction of gunpowder. Everything from Manchu Horse Archers to Siamese elephants mounted with double-barreled breech-loading swivel guns, katanas and the wavy kris. Essentially, a way more expanded Shogun 2. Lots of happened in Asia during this period. The Ming dynasty collapsed and was invaded by the Manchus. Japan ended the sengoku jidai and invaded Korea. The Mughals rose in Asia. Spain is active in the Phillipines and there were even visits from Caribbean pirates in the very late period. This time and area just has limitless color and action
I wouldn't mind playing a fleshed-out version of Empire's Warpath campaign set in an earlier time-period. It could be centered around the Americas and its tribes with a colonial invasion from Europe to spice up the endgame.
I really hope they don't end up covering old ground again (ie: Medieval 3/Empire 2 etc), I'd much prefer to see a title set during the Victorian era myself. This would encompass. The Crimean War & ACW of course & would probably hatch many DLC's as this time frame has era's within the main era., as tech, uniforms & equipment changed so much during those years. As much as I would love to see that, plus a World War One game, I think our friends at CA are very reluctant to even contemplate either of those two time periods as it would seem like a huge undertaking. At least not any time soon. I guess we can dream though huh :)
I feel like a WW1 game would be best made as a stand alone expansion for a total war game that encompasses the 19th century. including imperial conflicts and wars like the US civil war and Japan's Bosion war as mid game challenges.
Or it could be good vice versa. With smaller wars like the ones against native Americans in the Wild West, or some of the smaller wars in the Balkan’s, maybe even as far as the Russian civil war and smaller territorial conflicts after world war 1. With WW1 as the base sitting you could go as far forward or back as you want with dlcs.
As much as I think it would definitely work, I think the question is more would it be a great game. It shouldn't just be made because it's doable, it should be made if it's going to be a great game that is unique and worth playing over other games made specifically for WW1 type combat.
What setting do you want for the next Total War Game? Doesn't matter if it's historical or fantasy. UPDATE: Many in the comments have suggested Vicky TW, which I'd also love, but it gave me an idea. WW1 being either an end-game or even a BIG DLC for a Victorian Era TW. Troy Mythos expanded my views on the scope of what a DLC can add. I actually think that's more likely to happen than a dedicated WW1 game. UPDATE 2: A few have noticed the title has changed a few times. I'm testing out the theories presented in this video, which basically told me I'm a shit RUclipsr for slacking on my title/thumbnail combinations and metrics lol. Really cool channel btw: ruclips.net/video/S2xHZPH5Sng/видео.html
I think COH (Company of Heroes) is more suitable if we want to take WWI as background stories. The concept of turn based of Total War and battle concept of COH is great which is already adopted in COH 3. But it will be hard, because tanks in WWI are extremely slow and the role is just as infantry support. Just like Iron Harvest, but they replaced the tanks as mechanic robots
I’d like the next historical title to be Medieval 3 and for it to be as in-depth as 3K. I think the next fantasy title after WH3 should be an original IP from CA, like BioWare did with Dragon Age
The great war is an awesome channel and Indy neidel always made every single episode extra special and worthy of the millions who died in WWI. It's still a very interesting channel in which Jesse is trying to explain the mess that was the aftermath of the war to end all wars
The level of respect that your treating the war with, even talking about a game set in said war 1) that’s impressive and I just want the Great War total war now 2) you’ve just earned yourself a sub mate, awesome job on the vid
Great video! Love your initial focus on the history, it suits you! Also WW1 would be totally boss, but sadly I don’t think CA has the ambition or drive to try that, like ever. Would love to be proved wrong though!
Thanks for watching Andy! The sad truth is that I agree with you, and I don't think World War 1 Total War is coming anytime soon. It's much safer to make what they know works, like Medieval 3 or Empire 2. World War 1 has so many things going against it, and a big one is the overall theme. It's so bleak like Attila, and Attila sold like shit. We can dream though! I'd settle for a Vicky TW with a WW1 DLC tho
@@happycompy Hahaha Attila sold like shit but is like perhaaaaaaps the best TW game ever made (although much can be said on the performance, music, and obviously time period is a matter of taste), but yes, it sold badly. But from what I remember, Battlefield 1 became DICE’s best selling Battlefield ever. So I would be inclined to think Total War could fair just as well if they did it right.
@@AndysTake you're right on both fronts! Attila is a great game that's hardcapped at 400 hours on my stream library because it runs abysmally and end turn times are painfully slow, which really hurt the pacing on a slow burn game like Attila's grand campaign. Age of Charlemagne is fantastic all around though! You're also right that BF1 was the best selling BF game.
Imo the problem lies with the turn-based and current army system itself In WW1 you should not be able to engage in 2-3 big battles and win the war. You should not just annex a city after city, and so on.
Yes, but tbf, the rapidity of conquest is pretty ridiculous in this genre in general, even in blobbing simulators like EUIV. Attila is pretty brutal and grinding though. Actually now that we're talking about this, Attila is probably the closest analogue to the "vibe" I would expect a World War 1 Total War to have.
How would you feel about a fantasy "Total War Steampunk" set in a steampunk universe with units like those in "Steam Tower Defense 2" and "Iron harvest"? I personally would pre-order the day they sell it.
I'd love this game, thanks for putting your thoughts together in this video! One mechanic that came to mind was researching Infantry Doctrine. If the game starts in 1905, each empire's Infantry Doctrine should be "line up in bright uniforms and march toward to enemy". That doctrine worked in Europe for a few hundred years before 1905. Then, you could research the Infantry Doctrine "Duck and Cover", but it would cost "research points". There's a lot of resistance to change in armies, so researching "duck and cover" in 1905 would take all of your research points for the next 5 or 6 years. That's to model the general staff fighting the last battle. But once the war broke out, researching "duck and cover" would be very cheap (since most - but not all - generals can see that well-dressed suicide is not a winning tactic). From a gameplay standpoint, this would give the player an agonizing decision in 1905 - 1914: 1. spend all research on Infantry Doctrine (to get duck and cover); 2. spend all research points on tanks, aircraft, entrenchment, and similar items. The first gives you a huge boost in the first few years of the war, but leaves you behind in planes, tanks, etc. And would save millions of lives. The second gives you a huge advantage in the air and mobile combat. But in stand up battles you'll take 5 to 10 times as many casualties of a duck and over opponent. What decision would you make?
You choose a hard one, i personally think WW2 is more doable than WW1 since it's easier to replicate a war of movement in TW. Don't get me wrong the eastern and middle eastern fronts were very mobile, but Italy,Salonica and the Western front would be very hard to recreate.
I think you could create fortified settlrment that you Need to take to Advance because of supply and this are like Verdun, the Tirol fortification and Isonzo, the Russia fortresses in Poland ecc ... Even more the Defender can use more deploiable like trenchs, barb wire, bunker, mine fild (were used in ww1 ti) larger units . Like 1 units Is an entite batalion (1000 men) and map bigger. This are some ideas but i think you can recreate a like ww1 feeling, of course would not be realistic but no Total war game is realistic so i don't think Is a problem
For me the best era for a future total war would be the Victorian era (1837-1901). a lot of conflict during this period and all around the world. And the gameplay works great, we saw it with fall of the samurai.
To be honest, what we may need more so is CoH WW1, since they did come to the total war/HoI playing field ;) And there we would have proper combat & campaign interaction, of course centered around combat only but still! We never know!
CoH is too skirmishy. There were no radios in ww1 to coordinate small units spread across a map like in ww2. Everything coordinated on a large scale partially because they had to. CoH ww1 wouldn't be ww1. It would be ww2 but with slower tanks... In other words a waste of time. Total war on the other hand offers the ability for massed battles that isn't just blob rushes. Coordination on the large scale that was ww1.
If Total War WW1 ever releases, it needs to have melee units like troops with shovels and trench clubs, units with body armor, which was rare but it would still be amazing to see a few units, and have mechanics centered around trenches. Edit: Also, it would be interesting to see some soldiers wearing gloves. Edit2: 11:46 But bf1 encouraged randomness, grenade spam, and ultimately made skill in the game irrelevant, because of its normie friendly stuff like the intentionally unbalanced weapons. And bolt-action rifles and melee weapons were next to useless, which were the 2 categories that were mostly used in the war.
The main problem with a WW1 total war, is that it simply could not work as a Total War, both in the battle and in the campaign. The best way to have a RTS style game is something akin to the Company of Heroes or Men of War series, where it is squad/individial based armies. Total War simply could not work with large units the way it does now. Furthemore, if we take say the western front, the maps would just consist of assaulting a trench line with nothing other than a frontal charge after an artillery bombardment. Armies on the battlefield simply did not move in the same way that they do in the Total War franchise. Moreover, how do you translate this into the campaign? The way armies work in the Total War franchise is that they stack up into single units and march together. However this way of marching armies on the grand campaign simply does not work with the way frontlines worked during First World War. The best way to simulate something like this, is as is done in the Hearts of Iron series, with different tiles representing a much smaller part of the map. People may say that "What about the Napoleon Total War mod?". I've played this mod, and though the reskins are amazing, and a lot of detail is placed onto it, the mod can only replicate the war in the first months, before trench warfare, and even during then it doesn't feel right. Most of the war on the west consisted of constant artillery bombardments and sitting around doing nothing. In the naval aspect, the mod completely fails, and even a modern Total War could not recreate early 20th Century naval combat without botching it. The way I see it is that Total War simply couldn't pull this off without it completely changing the way Total War is. In other words, it would have to be a non-total war game for it to work.
I disagree, I think the infantry gameplay is totally doable, even on a large scale. It would require innovation, for SURE, but that's exactly what makes the prospect so exciting. We all know how a med 3 or Vicky would work, but WW1 is more of an open question. I would settle for a big World War I DLC for a Victorian Total War, though.
@@happycompy Thank you for making this video. Personally, I agree with Ignacio here, I simply do not see how WW1 trench warfare could translate into enjoyable Total War mechanics. You say that this part requires the most innovation, and you would be correct, so why don't you give us your view of how this new form of warfare would function in the game? How would you make a trench battle that is both enjoyable and historically accurate? How would you make it so that the battle doesn't become a static battle between 2 trenches with almost nothing to do (besides charging to the other trench, controlling artillery and maybe flying units)?
@@pabloscarpati6606 I'd handle it by downplaying the Trench Warfare aspect of WW1. The trench warfare meme only occurred on the western front, and only for the middle period of the war. The other fronts were very fluid and mobile warfare dominated, and even the west was mobile in the beginning and the end of the war (Germany developed some innovative assault tactics). The infantry needs MUCH more map interaction in terms of taking cover (shell-holes, trenches, etc) and they need individual entity AI like I said in the video. That's the meat of it.
I'd like to see Empire 2 take place in the 19th century, after Waterloo, and either end with World War 1, or have a very sizeable DLC or that covers it. There are so many events in the 19th century that set the stage for WW1 that the two would be an ideal pair.
Personally I would love a Pike and Shot Total War game, it would be a good mix of Empire's ranged combat and more traditional combat, plus it is a really cool time period.
WW1 is fundamentally ill suited to how the combat system works. Moving battlions of infantry around was something that was decisively ended prior to WW1 and by the later part of the war they'd moved onto semi-modern forms of unit deployment. Trenches became common late war due to the droves of inexperienced civilians coming onto the lines but early war the fronts remained mobile and the front was constantly moving around. Eventually things bogged down as you ended up with unbelievably complicated defensive lines as the technological advantages of the time gave a prepared defender such an significant advantage over the attacker. Total war just isn't built for that. Total war's engine is also not suited to the scale of the war nor the ways in which artillery and aircraft were deployed. The only thing that you could maybe do with a total war engine that happens during WW1 are the various fleet engagements. That's about it. If you want the ideal WW1 game you'd want something along the lines of a merge between Operation Star and Hearts of Iron. Total war and modern war is a terrible idea.
I would think you'd need something closer to wargame or steel division to pull it off. It would give you the space you'd need for deploying artillery and trench lines. You could even control full companies or regiments of men to get the scale right.
Precisely my point. The things you would need to change in tw in order to have it imitate the characteristics of ww1 and later on simply are too divergent. A huge part of the identity of tw lies in army stacks represented on the campaign map by a commander model walking around to indicate the army’s location and zone of control. On the battle map, the army breaks down into some 20 unit cards that are made up a a bunch of identical soldiers walking in formation. This works well for ancient era, medieval, and even up to napoleonic and victorian eras. This breaks down as you get closer to ww1. Abandoning these characteristics in order to have armies span entire fronts, no more large units walking in step but rather small companies where the soldier models act more independently, etc…(and that’s just with armies), supply lines, reinforcements, command hq’s, etc would also pull away from some aspects of tw that are very integral to its identity. Which isn’t to say some of these would t be welcome (I’ve been waiting so long for a good supply line mechanic so I can properly use embargo and sieges to win wars with no casualties). But a lot of the necessary elements work for games like strategic command or hoi but not tw.
I’m seeing something wholly different from the typical tw recipe that fans are accustomed to and recognize. I want to make it clear, it’s not that I think it would be impossible for ca to make a tw ww1 game. But rather, that product would look and play nothing like any of the previous tw games. It would be a complete departure from fundamental characteristics that make tw, tw. Arguably, before we got the benefit of hindsight, it seemed like etw had a similar issue where it seemed like battles with purely ranged/musket units would depart from the sword/cav/archer dynamic that was tw at the time. But really it wasn’t because you still had army stacks walking around the map, you still had large units of men marching in formation, etc…everything that was in the previous tw games except now most everything shoots at each other from range. For a ww1 game though, core aspects like army stacks giving way to whatever would replace it to allow frontline armies, units of men marching in formation, what constitutes as a battle (one army stacks marching into an opposing army stack), the duration of battles stretching beyond one turn, reinforcements, etc etc…all these changes would end up making something less like a tw game and more like a hoi game.
I would like to see a Mongolian Invasion Total War game. You get to play Asian factions, Middle Eastern factions, and Eastern European faction. It would be humongous campaign map but it's such a interesting time.
The biggest issue I think would be in terms of actual combat mechanics in how do you balance the artillery, trenches, machine guns, chemical warfare, and air power.
Meh, NTW has a mod for WW1 and its good enough for me. I also couldn't see it happening because we've never seen CA develop trench warfare besides mods. I wanted a Victorian Era game because it would make ETW and NTW part of a trilogy and I think it would be an interesting era to explore. Close seconds are ETW2 and MTW3. The American Civil War would probably be put into the Victorian Era as a DLC but it could be a standalone.
Victorian Era would basically be an Empire 2 without it being a full remake of the era, which I think is pretty cool. WW1, Empire 2, Victorian, Medieval 3, Mythology. I'd take any of those.
I'd like to add that the challenge of handling WW1 is part of why I'd like to see how CA would handle it. We all know Victoria TW could work, but WW1 is less certain.
10:08 There was the crimean war, Franco-Prussian war and even more in-between the napoleonic wars and world war one, there was not peace in-between them.
This video is still relevant. I would buy WW1 TW over Medieval 3 or Empire 2. The point is that fortifications and infantry holding the line were still dominant in this period. Air power and tanks could be deployed just like gunpowder in Medieval 2, in late 1916/17 and not be so dominant until 18. I'm convinced that people say they don't want WW1 because to them war is only horse, spear, sword and bow. I see no diference (besides technology)between a tank charge to a heavy cav one in medieval times. Both are tough, armored units designed for pressuring enemy lines to break them into losing cohesion. I'm also sure that most of the people who are strongly against the time setting (maybe not your case, reader) never played a RTS set in the period. My suggestion for it: Empire Earth 2. The campaign levels set in WW1 can help imagining some of the potential for a future project.
10:10 "But what we absolutely CANNOT have is soldiers standing still shooting across the battlefield at eachother like its the 18th century." This might, and I mean _might_ apply to the first few battles in World War 1 before everything devolved into attrition + trench warfare. The Battle of the Frontiers saw the French and German patriotically marching across the golden and green plains of northeastern France, almost like a scene from the Napoleonic Wars. When both sides did engage, I'd imagine some did stand out in the open and some hid behind rocks, tree lines, and along river banks.
The form and tactics of warfare was completely different, it would have to be at least squad based to make any semblance of sense in the setting and then it wouldn’t be a total war game, furthermore the campaign wouldn’t work either, in total war you lead an army into the enemy and have a pitched battle. In ww1 you have constant conflict over a shifting front line. It just doesn’t work.
Solid production again! My personal wishlist would be (in order of preference) 1: LoTR 2: Age of colonization (pike and shot transitioning into age of gunpowder) This would start around 1500 till 1700. 3: WW1 era, with a historical accurate mode starting around 1900 and ending in a full scale war between remaining factions in 1914. I would like to add that Total War games have always felt quite blend in terms of geopolitics and intrigue. Now I don't need Paradox studio style intrigue and depth, but some form of buff for major nations until 1914 or somehow a technology tree leading up to 1914 where you have to make tactical choices would seem like a nice addition to change up the pace and gameplay, where going to war early would be fatal.
LoTR is an obvious money-printer, and I'd certainly contribute to the money-printing hahahaha. Pike and Shot I'm not sold on, although it DOES contain the 30 Years War, which is pretty epic.
@@happycompy i mean there's the conquest of the Americas, lots of stuff happening in Europe with the Ottomans especially, plenty of developments in India, the age of the Samurai in Japan all bundled into one. It would probably be the biggest project yet, much bigger than any of the others, which makes it a highly unlikely product to ever release haha
The First World War was a war of attrition. I’ve thought that if there were to be a First World War TW, it would be both historical and an interesting mechanic if your armies could dig in on the campaign map, both armies suffering attrition but supply lines reducing that and battles would be you (or the AI) ‘going over the top’ into no man’s land and attacking the enemy trenches which would be a high risk-high reward kind of situation. A success would be huge for you but a failure could cause severe casualties. Fun and historical.
Out of the 384 hours I have on Napoleon Total War on Steam, easily half of that, if not more, was spent in the Great War mod. While very janky at times, that mod was the most fun experience I've ever had in a Total War game, and even after several years of not playing TW games, I still hover over the 'play' button every so often, dreading the potentially sleepless night it would trigger should I give it a go. The only issue I see with a WW1 TW game is how do you recreate the stupidly high death tolls without annihilating entire four-stack armies in every battle. In the WW1 mod, unless I kept my soldiers in their trenches while hammering the AI with artillery, I'd end up in battles where two thirds or more of my infantry would get slaughtered fighting in the open. The game would need a constant trickle of reinforcements to be in place, and army sizes will have to be increased exponentially, both in the size of individual units, as well as the amount of units you can field per stack.
There's only one thing I can really add to what you said and it's regarding atmosphere. If CA plans to do a game like this they absolutely have to add a system where each turn you get a letter from a soldier sent back home where you can hear their thoughts, for example: "Hello ma, pa, it's the day before I head out to the front lines to deal with the Jerry, wish me luck and tell my Margret to keep making her homemade pies Sincerely George, X" And hell if they wanted to they could use this to have an actual story to the game
The pitch kinda sounds more logistically possible if you pitch it as Men of War Assault Squad 2 with a campaign compared to a Total War WW1. However, awesome video! Earned a subscription from me!
I agree with many points, but the real issue for me would be the diplomacy. Once WW1 is won and over with, end of game. It would run the risk of been repetitive. However, if they set the game during the European period of peace in the 1800's, then that would fix this issue. WW1 would be an end-game mechanic, with your own built up alliances. And then you have smaller conflicts like the Franco-Prussian War and maybe Crimean War to fill in the gaps. (maybe a historical ww1 would be best as a DLC for this)
I've been convinced throughout the comments section that a WW1 GIGA DLC (on the scale of FoTS or Mythos) for a Victoria Total War would be the most likely way I get my WW1 wish.
I'd want the 30 years war period. A good rock paper scissors dynamic between pike, cavalry and musket. Good opportunity to explore religious and political diplomacy and lots of factions and forms of government.
Tbh, I've never played Total War, but when you mentioned BF1 gas masks, an idea poped on my head: "Warning: Your infantry lacks gas masks equipment. In confrontation with mustard gas it will suffer severe casualities". I mean that well equipped infantry, will automatically put their masks on, when attacked with gas.
I think that one thing that could add realism. You can have field battles, without trenches etc, like happened on the eastern front BUT of you don't get a decisive victory, both armies dig trenches and are unable to move until one or the other side does get a decisive victory. Fighting again and again every turn.
I really wish they would make this. Obviously it would be extremely challenging to design such a game. Few people realize just how large of a conflict the Great War was. The armies involved dwarf anything we have seen since world war 2 and battles often lasted for months. The Battle of the Somme lasted 4 months and the British alone lost over 125,000 men in that battle. To be honest I'm not sure how you could accurately represent that. The other problem is that the Great War was a war of attrition, basically a series of sieges lasting multiple years periodically interrupted by massive costly battles with casualties in the millions. That said I still believe it can be done. Battles that took place early in the war and after 1917 were fairly mobile and there were decisive battles that occurred outside the western front, in Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. To make it work you would need a global map, not just Europe and the western front and you would need a way to scale down some of the colossal battles like Verdun, the Somme, the battle of Ypres and Gallipoli in a way that didn't involve rendering the movements of tens of thousands of soldiers moving across the screen all at once melting everyone's graphic's cards. I think it would be a great challenge but one worth doing.
I think the focus would have to be on breaking or even avoiding the deadlock. World War 1 was basically like a battle of Go in the beginning where each side tried to outmaneuver the other until the trenches in Europe reached the sea. Obviously no one wants to play a game where all your men just sit in trenches and shell each other for a year or two. Rather you would need a global strategic map to ensure that your always actively fighting somewhere while you prepare for a breakthrough on the Western Front. Like the war the first few battles would be decisive and brief followed by long sieges where both sides dig in. It's a mistake to think that World War one was just one long waiting game. There were many battles but they were so costly, so enormous so resource intensive that they couldn't be sustained.The progression of Technology would obviously dominate this type of game as the belligerents developed more devastating weapons and the first side to use them had an immediate tactical advantage which would then quickly disappear.It would also need to be flexible. It should be possible to change the outcome of the war such as if the Battle of the Somme was decisive and the Germans were pushed back or if the Triple Entente had managed to push Turkey out of the war early on. Or if the Germans were able to take Paris when they executed the Schlieffen Plan or manged to push the British out of France once Russia had been defeated. History didn't necessary have to follow the path it took. Mistakes and miscalculations were made on both sides, mistakes that the player might not make possibly leading to a different outcome.
I remember there being a huge push on the forums to get them to make a WW1 game. There was a ton of detail put into it and some of the team members even participated and said they liked the idea. Instead they decided to make Rome 2, not only setting them up for the uninspired redrudging of their past hits but also showing how little effort they would put into making the series anything other than a battle simulator.
That sounds epic. Shame what happened with Rome 2's abysmal launch after riding high with FoTS. I will say, Three Kingdoms gave me hope again that CA is capable of making deeper campaigns.
Yeah what they should do is implement a call to arms style infantry system which allows single selection of troops and it allows for troops to fire while moving
Your suggestion to make the individual units seek cover when under fire, imo, was best implemented by the system used in Tom Clansy's Endwar. If an area an infantry unit is nearby offers cover, they actively utilize it. The ones who lack cover, die very, very fast lmao. However, to answer your end of the video question, I'd like to see the scope of Empire total war and Warhammer, married with the polish and point in time that Fall of the Samurai takes place. So essentially, WWI. It would be truly glorious to have a game with that degree of details. The most satisfying part of Empire for me, was in running an empire. All the little details of how you build up your territory that gradually was phased out overtime to a simplified version in Napoleon Total War, and entirely removed with the province system that now dominates TW games.
There was a WW1 mod I used years ago with Total War Napoleonic Wars. The only thing it didn't really capture well was trenches. You ended up fighting the entire war with just mass casualty melees and mass charges.
The civil war up to the end of ww1 would be incredible. Maybe 4 turns per year with each season(summer,winter,mud). You get the change from muskets to machine guns with cavalry and then tanks. A problem would be balancing artillery. Which would be better accuracy with their experience. If you get a stack of rifleman to hold a kind and 10 artillery with silver tier/gold experience and your rifleman won’t even see the enemy
I have always said that TW: Great War would work and I'm happy to meet someone who also agrees! I want to say I don't recall how I found your channel, I don't even remember subscribing but man am I glad, it's great to see people continuing to talk about historical TW as much as I love Fantasy I always said they should have made a new brand Total War Fantasy or something to prevent them having to try and satisfy both markets but anyway I appreciate the videos and the love of Aliens! Hoo-rah
I found this video because it what I was looking for would WWl work in Total War, as I am not very well versed in the war. The 4 Total War games I want the most with no specific order. Medieval 3: Medieval 2 was the first Total War game I played and it blew me away! It is still great today but it would be fun having it a little more modern.. not modern in style as game is getting worse but better graphics, little less jank, the game is close to perfection. Empire 2: I am Swedish and being able to play as my country and build an Empire is amazing, it is not often I get to play as my country. Empire was fun but had allot of problems, I hope they could make a new one that works a little better, also the smoke of the gunpowder and artillery fire would look amazing with little more modern graphics. Great War Total War: I want to both learn more and play a little different setting, I think it could be very interesting. Song of ice and fire: I would love a Game of Thrones total war, the world building is great so you have the options for very different armies, I would most likely put it around Robert's Rebellion because that means no dragons or ice zombies. The politics and warfare would be so fun.
Watched a video on the assassination of Ferdinand. Princip was trying to shoot the guard behind Franz's wife but she rose up from her seat and got in the way.
As someone who’s recently gotten back into both Medieval 2 and Empire, I’d be super happy with either Medieval 3 or Empire 2 (although slightly preferring Med) which is great for me because they’ll most likely be one of those 🤣
Total war would have to drop the clump army fighting style, but as far as charging after the whistle from the trenches go. Yes, I can see that work, but it would have to take a lot of influence from Company of Heroes overall.
The one thing they would need to do is have massive unit scales and increase replenish rate. If they really wanted the essence of ww1 it will need to have lots of casualties, but being able to recoup or recruit troops quickly will keep gameplay at a decent pace
Dude thank you! BF1 was one of my favorite games I ever played and started my love for anything ww1! Just seeing a bomber plane flying in about to drop bombs on me at the ottoman castle map as I dived into defenses was just so immersive and atmospheric it really got me ! Sorry for all the comments I got hyped XD love your stuff first time I seen you subbed now !
On the subject of individual soldier AI, I was impressed back in the day by CnC3 infantry behavior. In the base game, GDI infantry was moving in formation and sticking to walls for cover while NOD militants behave like a mob. In Kane's Wrath, the reskinned militants in military gear behave like GDI infantry. IMHO, it was basic and inconsequential on gameplay, but really immersive.
![GEEK TIMË [OFFICIAL AUDIO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ry-6RvkH880/mqdefault.jpg)
This just sounds like a paradox game with total war's combat. Which is what I've wanted for years.
Amen
Christ in heaven! Imagine the amount of chaos that Swedish map painters and Total War peeps would cause.
Please give me Total War: Crusader Kings finally
What about company of heros with an in depth campaign map
Yeah the modding community needs to get on that, bring together total wars battles and something like crusader kings. I know crusader kings modders made something where you can play bannerlord battles linked with your crusader kings game.
I'd personally like an empire 2 (from the 1600s to 1750s ish) but any setting will be good IF the gameplay is good... the gameplay makes the game, not the setting.
Well said, completely agree. The setting exists to package the gameplay, but if the gameplay sucks, the game sucks. On the other hand, a game with great gameplay can survive even if the setting sucks.
I submit exibit A - Empire Total War has terrible gameplay due to the bugs, but its still more popular a game than Napoleon Total War due to the Setting. The setting is all that game has and people still play it more than NTW and its the second most popular game people want next
@@merlin4084 I wouldn't say empire has terrible gameplay... it fails at a lot of things (due to never truly being finished) but there are more gameplay options than most other total war games. Trade and economy are actually a factor, naval combat is quite good, the land combat can range from terrible to great and there are some good mods that add a whole lot of other depth. The large map isn't setting, that's a gameplay choice, and I am willing to bet that if napoleon had that map then no one would play empire. That's my take anyways
@@thesiberianproductions3748 Napoleon and Attila suffer from the same problem, that they're separate games when they should have been expansions to Empire and Rome 2.
Napoleon suffers from one extra problem that Atilla doesn't. The campaign is boring to play, as its just a stripped down version of Empire.
Napoleon couldn't have a larger map due to the setting it was depicting (Napoleon never went or thought global between 1805 and 1815). So a world map wouldn't make sense. Its a campaign expansion that undeservedly got to be its own game.
Totally agree, what we see nowadays is just flashy and quick, not strategy battle lines or substance although there are very good graphics and concepts, goes to say gameplay is everything
Whatever the setting, I crave for the concept of supply lines done right in a total war opus. It's so infuriating to see full armies sneak into your territory and just have a grand old fun, when realistically they should be missing food, ammunition, shelter, and even orders from the top.
Totally agree. I've been bitching about this for a long time about Stellaris, which has been my main play game for several years. But I was playing a bit more Empire TW lately and I wished for it there too. I would like to play a sneaky Guerilla army who wears down enemy supply lines while my main column moves in. Almost no game has that!
@@peterlokin4098 CK3 is by far not as war oriented as HOI4 or Stellaris. The focus is on medieval politics. So I disagree with the comparison here.
What you describe sounds a lot like the content of the DEI MOD for Rome II. Personally I feel that mod changes the game far too much, & I would find it way too frustrating feeling like I was getting bogged down with all that. Don't get me wrong I can see your point but I doubt it would be for me, sorry.
That would work just fine for most ancient armies (as they were less reliant of supply lines than their more modern counterparts), but armies of the Napoleonic era and beyond can’t pull that kind of shit.
@@FrankCastle-tq9bz even medieval and earlier armies need to eat. I agree they can forage, but this kind of activity takes time and then they should move slower (the pillage stance of Warhammer TW is nice in this regard, except it shouldn't be required only to cross cursed lands and mountain passes)
I would Love WW1 or we could build up from what they did in Troy and make a Bronze Age Total War. I do agree between the World Map of Empire, Supply lines of Troy and 3k, and Diverse mechanics of Warhammer they could make the game amazing. I would be interested in how they would divide the theaters of war.
Agreed. There's plenty of opportunity here.
@@happycompy
It has to be ww1
Bronze Age? Nah.
war hammer has everything we need for a ww1 game, flying things, tanks :(
I'd like something actually historical without the fantasy stuff
A Victorian Total War game would be great! However, it would only work if you were able to intertwine historical events such as the Crimean War, the German and Italian Wars of Unification, and the American Civil War into the fold.
1800-1925 could cover all of the above with WWI being the culmination.
@@jackstokes8479 total war world war 1 videogame apart
Dryse needle rifle VS chasspot
I love the history behind the two World Wars... but the first World War was the first large scale conflict that was not fought and won/lost in single battles (like the battle of Austerlitz, where Napoleon defeated a massive coalition force and effectively won the war) but along the whole front. Total War warfare is based on 1v1 single battle army clashes and sieges. It´s the same problem I have with playing the 1604 mod for Hearts of Iron IV, the playstyle just feels so wrong. I just think that the Total War series really shines in every era from the bronze age up until the napoleonic wars, but everything closer to the present seems just unfitting to me.
Good point, however trench warfare only just developed when the Western front went into stalemate. WW1 was more a mixture between single battles and a large scale front. Also due to the AI buffs the games always felt like fighting through masses of enemy armies to gain piece by piece more land. There was never an Gaugamela, Austerlitz or Königgrätz in TW games.
In addition, the latest games always had a form of crisis event built into it. One could do the same in a WW1 TW where it triggers the trench warfare implementing a bunch of control points that need to be captured before your armies can advance into enemy territory. Perhaps, a first loss in battle would not lead to an army retreat depending on your supply lines and you would need to fight the battle again under different circumstances (The first battle transforms the battle ground through destruction or the winner gains an important landmark on the battlefield). It would also make sense to increase the amount of armies you can sustain or perhaps add an replenishment pool to each army which doesn't take part in a battle but could greatly recover losses :)
which is ironic considering the two major wars that really define the term "total war" are not present whatsoever in the Total War franchise.
Calling it now; trench guns will be the first tech unlocked and be absolutely broken.
Spiffing brits will love it
Gotta make the game historically accurate
*Gas Attack will be broken.
@@liamjm9278 I could see them balancing gas weapons by having them be affected by the weather. High winds or rain on the battlefield? Then your gas could dissipate too quickly, or drift back in your direction. Not to mention that "gas masks" would just be a stance you can place infantry in, like a shield wall or phalanx.
I think you mean tanks. Tanks allowed the British, French and Americans to start taking ground without suffering the enormous losses incurred in earlier battles. You can bet it would be a rush to develop the tank and then steam roll the trenches. and probably end up being totally broken. But I still love it anyway and yeah I would totally steam roll the Germans with Tanks or maybe the British and French or hell maybe be the Japanese steam roll the Germans and Russians in Manchuria.
I feel like WWI is such a largely unexplored and underappreciated time period in terms of video games. We already have shooters like BF1, Verdun and Tannenburg, so an RTS game I think would be a really nice addition to the WWI set games.
It doesn't need to be historically accurate, it only need to be historically authentic to make it a selling point. Any time point in history is interesting, but if a 'teacher' is boring, it still going to be boring. Same with the game, it needs to be engaging enough that it will make you feel like you're really in that time period.
"Any time point in history is interesting, but if the teacher is boring, it will be boring." I love the way you put this.
I find this concept would be interesting, but would love most to see a pike and shot representation in Total War first. They've already done muskets in the Shogun and Empire games, and pikes/phalanxes in many of the others. Why not cover the 1500-1600s?
This right here
I totally agree. Especially the 30 years war would be very suitable for a Total War.
i mean it dosnt work well but late game medival 2 and that americas expansion has pike and shot tactics
Cromwell?
Yes I’d love that period as well
I’m more skeptical about how they’d be able to simulate the grand scale stagnation and one or two miles worth of changes on the front line that come with trench warfare.
Elder Scrolls: Total War, Lord of the Rings: Total War and Tiberium: Total War. I know the first two were made by mod makers, but I'd really like an official CA take.
I take elders scrolls i want dovahkiin here
The idea of having your battalion of men charge out of a legitimate trench to attack the enemy trench and be mowed down by machine gun fire would be crazy to see in “Total War” game style. Like you said the details would need to be on point along with a boost in the AI otherwise it would require massive numbers of men to gain ground every single time not just once in a while
Yep, also each unit comprises of dozens of soldiers in other total war games. It would be nice if there were a change, maybe smaller number of people per unit, but have more units per stack, or when charging through the frontlines a single unit would spread out thin instead of being clustered like what we see in other TW games
@@kyfernandez3057 the WW1 mod is awesome in the sense that it was at least made and gave a taste of this idea but the trenches didn’t look like actual trenches that was the first thing I noticed, I’m sure game play would need to be improved upon
Well, it _did_ require massive amounts of men. Although not all battles in WW1 were drawn out stalemates, and there were mobile phases as well.
Edit.
Oh I get it, in the unit sense. Yeah, they should be smaller units in a larger stack.
Having independent unit's with it's own AI per entity on a total war scale is not gonna happen for quite some time, the amount of processing power needed would be massive.
Units would get decimated under artillery/machingun fire, a reinforcement mechanic along with a more robust supply chain mechanics would need to be implemented. Regarding the resources, they could be:
steel, petroleum, rubber, gold, iron and concrete along with regular money.
love your content by the way
Brilliant ideas, especially the resources. Those are similar to the ones in HoI4 I believe.
Change oil whit coal, oil was used but not as much as in ww2 and way less of coal
@@jacopofolin6400 That's not true. Navies changed from coal to oil since it was significantly better a fuel source. Planes needed it and so did tanks. Coal was more to keep the lights on and basically everyone had a fuckload of it, hence why it's not in HOI.
@@lokenontherange Yes and no. I mean, what you say about oil is right, but coal was still very much a disputed ressource. It was essential in the transformation of iron and steel. The Ruhr wasn't occupied for no reason after the war. It was the biggest industrial area in Europe thanks to coal. Coal is what made Southern Belgium and Northern France rich AF at the time, and bankrupt in the following decades. In the 50's it's coal and steel that laid the frame for the modern EU, with the ECSC.
There is already a Great War mod for Napoleon. It is absolutely one of the best
My doesnt work😓😭😭😭 i feel like i am doing something wrong
11 and 12 generation CPU can't run napoleon
Tbh, I would love a “pike and shot” era total war.
C’mon, winged hussars arriving, you gotta give me that.
Hell yeah!
Imagine poland deluge
wow
It would also allow for a research tree that would change the feel of the battles throughout the campaign with all the innovation in weaponry and tactics in that era. Ever since Empire TW technology felt kind of dull and only improved stats rather than the actual warfare. I loved how in Empire TW the innovation of the bayonet or other fire styles completly changed battle tactics.
Only way you can get that is in warhammer
It must happen at somepoint since the first time i played rome 1 in my smollboi times i was putting full archer armys against eachother imagining it was a world war battle (my imagination was a lot larger those days) now knowing total war im sure this must be possible and i long for this and the dlc and the tech tree and the grimy battles yes please
Hell yes. Modders back then even made a WW2 mod.
I know its cliché but I really want medieval 3. Updated graphics in one of the best total war settings would be great. The mods for Attila look amazing but an official game would be awesome.
I don't get this new age hype for old games being constantly remade just with prettier graphics. What's the point? The visuals were never what made Medieval 2 so amazing.
I'd like a Victoria style game, or an actual Bronze Age Mod, just leave out the fantasy stuff
It’s not just a matter of visuals but also the improved gameplay aspects that’s emerged out of the industry since then. There are numerous gameplay elements that exist in modern tw games that would enrich the med2 experience. Even if you just look at what mods have been able to do in those games, often times their hands are tied by archaic engine limitations that stop them from properly implementing certain things. Sometimes they end up finding weird work arounds, but they usually end up really clunky.
idk about anyone else but i gotta say the 1 thing i miss more then anything else from MTW2 is the unit upgrade system i mean actually seeing differences in models based on the level of skill there equipment was crafted at was a big thing to me
MC Mark Markson not just graphics, functioning gameplay useable walls, infantry that works!!! Real age military tactics, brutal AI, maps both Land and City actually enjoyable and make sense
I'm very skeptical of the idea that trench warfare would be engaging in a real time sense without a number of changes that deviate from the actual course of WW1. I don't find spending many turns building up a large army only to lose it in a few minutes in a trench grind very engaging.
That kind of conflict works for something like grand strategy where it isn't important to focus on battles in great detail.
Maybe if there were concessions made to change the nature of trench warfare, or introduce things like tanks earlier to make it easier to break through deadlocks.
I certainly agree that it would make for a great setting, just look at BF1, but I think the core concept is a bit flawed from the get go.
Victorian combat maybe would work better. The transition between Napoleonic to Victorian combat definitely allows for the kind of large scale infantry battle that could evolve into the hint of what WW1 would become.
One of the reasons I find World War 1 so fascinating is that it's a turning point in military history. The war started out very much like an 19th century war with armies maneuvering and taking ground, but of course weapons technology had far outpaced 19th century military tactics and after failing to capture Paris the Germans dug in and after a series of battles the front became static. In 1916 both sides attempted to break the deadlock. The Germans at Verdun and the British at the Somme both ending in bloody stalemate. By the time the US entered the conflict the war had completely changed. The Germans moved all there divisions from the Eastern Front to the West and the British and French were nearly pushed back into the sea and then the with the introduction of American troops the tide turned and the Germans were pushed almost all the way back to Germany. All of that would be hard to model into a Total War game but if they could pull it off it would be extremely fascinating and I would definitely play it.
Personally, I’m dying for a pike and shot Total War game. The closest we’ve gotten was very very early game Empire, very very late game Medieval, and maybe sort of Shogun 2 kind of slightly perhaps?
Pike and shot as a total war game would be boring as fuck.
@@mcmarkmarkson7115 uncultured
When I think of Total war, I think of rigid formations. I dont think they would have models just do their own thing.
Soldiers did formations in WW1. A battlefield would mostly consist of bomb your enemy before you attack, blow the whistles and rush into no mans land, and then over run the trench eventually. I think it could be pulled off in total war and I think it would probably work out like a siege battle. I think this game would pull off the political system very well too although I do think it would work better in a ww2 game (the political system).
@@MourningStar67 That isn't true after 1915. By that point creeping barrages to cover advancing troops and assault tactics where small squads would work together to provide supporting fire across no-man's-land had been developed by that point. Its far more complex then formations and just charging across no-man's-land. Assualt tactics after 1917 were not so different then those of WW2.
@@bobsemple6537 well don't have to be too realistic, Just Watch the mod ww1 on Napoleon, Is still funny. If you make somethig like this but Better made and no bugs
@@bobsemple6537 they kind of have something they could do for that - some games did have a ‘fire and advance’ ability - it wasn’t very useful, but if they used a similar idea to that they could probably pull off something fairly accurate
@@bobsemple6537 This isn't even true by 1914. There were countries that tried it but since men aren't suicidal and officers aren't actually retarded it was instantly abandoned whenever it was used. Heck, the main reason why lines bogged down so much is that conscripts and civilian volunteers didn't have the training to keep moving under fire.
I've always though company of heroes should be the style for WW1 and up. I think it would work better in that system than in total war
Disagree, company of heroes is too small scale for ww1. Too few troops on the map.
I remain a staunch advocate for a TW set in 16th-17th century Asia.
You have a large map with lots of different culture, weapon varieties, and the introduction of gunpowder. Everything from Manchu Horse Archers to Siamese elephants mounted with double-barreled breech-loading swivel guns, katanas and the wavy kris.
Essentially, a way more expanded Shogun 2. Lots of happened in Asia during this period. The Ming dynasty collapsed and was invaded by the Manchus. Japan ended the sengoku jidai and invaded Korea. The Mughals rose in Asia. Spain is active in the Phillipines and there were even visits from Caribbean pirates in the very late period. This time and area just has limitless color and action
I would prefer this than empire 2 on europe because of the diversity
"Grow up a giga nerd reading medieval encyclopedia books" - That hit a little too close to home.
I wouldn't mind playing a fleshed-out version of Empire's Warpath campaign set in an earlier time-period.
It could be centered around the Americas and its tribes with a colonial invasion from Europe to spice up the endgame.
Victorian era for me. So many awesome conflicts to explore and we know they can do it justice thanks to Fall of the Samurai.
I really hope they don't end up covering old ground again (ie: Medieval 3/Empire 2 etc), I'd much prefer to see a title set during the Victorian era myself. This would encompass. The Crimean War & ACW of course & would probably hatch many DLC's as this time frame has era's within the main era., as tech, uniforms & equipment changed so much during those years. As much as I would love to see that, plus a World War One game, I think our friends at CA are very reluctant to even contemplate either of those two time periods as it would seem like a huge undertaking. At least not any time soon. I guess we can dream though huh :)
I feel like a WW1 game would be best made as a stand alone expansion for a total war game that encompasses the 19th century. including imperial conflicts and wars like the US civil war and Japan's Bosion war as mid game challenges.
Or it could be good vice versa. With smaller wars like the ones against native Americans in the Wild West, or some of the smaller wars in the Balkan’s, maybe even as far as the Russian civil war and smaller territorial conflicts after world war 1. With WW1 as the base sitting you could go as far forward or back as you want with dlcs.
As a Serbian and a Total War fan, this is a must for me! WWI was my wish since Shogun Fall of Samurai as well... Just most insane period to cover
Hell yeah brother!
I can just imagine a Gallipoli battle, that’d be sick.
As much as I think it would definitely work, I think the question is more would it be a great game. It shouldn't just be made because it's doable, it should be made if it's going to be a great game that is unique and worth playing over other games made specifically for WW1 type combat.
What setting do you want for the next Total War Game? Doesn't matter if it's historical or fantasy. UPDATE: Many in the comments have suggested Vicky TW, which I'd also love, but it gave me an idea. WW1 being either an end-game or even a BIG DLC for a Victorian Era TW. Troy Mythos expanded my views on the scope of what a DLC can add. I actually think that's more likely to happen than a dedicated WW1 game.
UPDATE 2: A few have noticed the title has changed a few times. I'm testing out the theories presented in this video, which basically told me I'm a shit RUclipsr for slacking on my title/thumbnail combinations and metrics lol. Really cool channel btw: ruclips.net/video/S2xHZPH5Sng/видео.html
Total war mythology
@@thesmilyguyguy9799 Total War Mythology would be amazing, I agree.
@@thesmilyguyguy9799 Already out in the new updates to troy
Total war bronze Age. Or mongol invasion. What do you think?
@@FazlurTheGreat YES!
I think COH (Company of Heroes) is more suitable if we want to take WWI as background stories. The concept of turn based of Total War and battle concept of COH is great which is already adopted in COH 3. But it will be hard, because tanks in WWI are extremely slow and the role is just as infantry support. Just like Iron Harvest, but they replaced the tanks as mechanic robots
I’d like the next historical title to be Medieval 3 and for it to be as in-depth as 3K. I think the next fantasy title after WH3 should be an original IP from CA, like BioWare did with Dragon Age
The great war is an awesome channel and Indy neidel always made every single episode extra special and worthy of the millions who died in WWI. It's still a very interesting channel in which Jesse is trying to explain the mess that was the aftermath of the war to end all wars
They both are great, and they made me trully believe ww1 and ww2 are just a new 30 years war
Company of Heroes 1 is such a great game, and was ahead of its time. Great video btw
Completely agree. CoH 2 is such a disappointment compared to the first, despite me dumping 800 hours in it LOL.
@@happycompy Damn 800 hours lol. I remember booting it and being sad it wasn't as good at hte first one.
I’ve also wanted a ww1 total war so bad. It’s the ultimate total war
The level of respect that your treating the war with, even talking about a game set in said war
1) that’s impressive and I just want the Great War total war now
2) you’ve just earned yourself a sub mate,
awesome job on the vid
Thanks hunter, I'm glad my reverence for the severity of the war shone through in the video.
Loving this channel more and more. It's like you're _literally me_
Same love of history, middle ages encyclopedias, and desire for world War 1 TW.
Great video! Love your initial focus on the history, it suits you! Also WW1 would be totally boss, but sadly I don’t think CA has the ambition or drive to try that, like ever. Would love to be proved wrong though!
Thanks for watching Andy! The sad truth is that I agree with you, and I don't think World War 1 Total War is coming anytime soon. It's much safer to make what they know works, like Medieval 3 or Empire 2. World War 1 has so many things going against it, and a big one is the overall theme. It's so bleak like Attila, and Attila sold like shit.
We can dream though! I'd settle for a Vicky TW with a WW1 DLC tho
@@happycompy Hahaha Attila sold like shit but is like perhaaaaaaps the best TW game ever made (although much can be said on the performance, music, and obviously time period is a matter of taste), but yes, it sold badly. But from what I remember, Battlefield 1 became DICE’s best selling Battlefield ever. So I would be inclined to think Total War could fair just as well if they did it right.
@@AndysTake you're right on both fronts! Attila is a great game that's hardcapped at 400 hours on my stream library because it runs abysmally and end turn times are painfully slow, which really hurt the pacing on a slow burn game like Attila's grand campaign. Age of Charlemagne is fantastic all around though! You're also right that BF1 was the best selling BF game.
Men of war also has a wonderful way of doing stuff with it with ww1 combat being almost the same as in real life
Imo the problem lies with the turn-based and current army system itself
In WW1 you should not be able to engage in 2-3 big battles and win the war. You should not just annex a city after city, and so on.
Yes, but tbf, the rapidity of conquest is pretty ridiculous in this genre in general, even in blobbing simulators like EUIV. Attila is pretty brutal and grinding though. Actually now that we're talking about this, Attila is probably the closest analogue to the "vibe" I would expect a World War 1 Total War to have.
Part of the pace could be solved by increasing the number of turns per year and reducing movement range of armies.
@@happycompy this is why i believe paradox's HOI4 is a lot closer to the vibe of a WW1 game
I feel like a total war game revolving around the world war settings would make the game more popular.
How would you feel about a fantasy "Total War Steampunk" set in a steampunk universe with units like those in "Steam Tower Defense 2" and "Iron harvest"?
I personally would pre-order the day they sell it.
Fuck it, I'd buy it if it was good and had cool factions.
I'd love this game, thanks for putting your thoughts together in this video!
One mechanic that came to mind was researching Infantry Doctrine. If the game starts in 1905, each empire's Infantry Doctrine should be "line up in bright uniforms and march toward to enemy". That doctrine worked in Europe for a few hundred years before 1905. Then, you could research the Infantry Doctrine "Duck and Cover", but it would cost "research points". There's a lot of resistance to change in armies, so researching "duck and cover" in 1905 would take all of your research points for the next 5 or 6 years. That's to model the general staff fighting the last battle.
But once the war broke out, researching "duck and cover" would be very cheap (since most - but not all - generals can see that well-dressed suicide is not a winning tactic). From a gameplay standpoint, this would give the player an agonizing decision in 1905 - 1914:
1. spend all research on Infantry Doctrine (to get duck and cover);
2. spend all research points on tanks, aircraft, entrenchment, and similar items.
The first gives you a huge boost in the first few years of the war, but leaves you behind in planes, tanks, etc. And would save millions of lives.
The second gives you a huge advantage in the air and mobile combat. But in stand up battles you'll take 5 to 10 times as many casualties of a duck and over opponent.
What decision would you make?
That sounds really interesting! Would represent the rapid technological and tactical advancements during the war.
You choose a hard one, i personally think WW2 is more doable than WW1 since it's easier to replicate a war of movement in TW. Don't get me wrong the eastern and middle eastern fronts were very mobile, but Italy,Salonica and the Western front would be very hard to recreate.
But the units would be divided into small squads like in men of war instead of the line infantry of ww1
Would be a completely different game
I think you could create fortified settlrment that you Need to take to Advance because of supply and this are like Verdun, the Tirol fortification and Isonzo, the Russia fortresses in Poland ecc ... Even more the Defender can use more deploiable like trenchs, barb wire, bunker, mine fild (were used in ww1 ti) larger units . Like 1 units Is an entite batalion (1000 men) and map bigger. This are some ideas but i think you can recreate a like ww1 feeling, of course would not be realistic but no Total war game is realistic so i don't think Is a problem
I have been wanting for this so hard. WW1 had an awakening of modern warfare tactics so each faction would have pretty unique feel.
I would like a game from the pike and shot era
Me too....Thirty years war...why CA didnt make this huge brutal conflict
@@sniffles8672 Don’t know why they never did it
For me the best era for a future total war would be the Victorian era (1837-1901). a lot of conflict during this period and all around the world. And the gameplay works great, we saw it with fall of the samurai.
To be honest, what we may need more so is CoH WW1, since they did come to the total war/HoI playing field ;)
And there we would have proper combat & campaign interaction, of course centered around combat only but still! We never know!
CoH is too skirmishy. There were no radios in ww1 to coordinate small units spread across a map like in ww2.
Everything coordinated on a large scale partially because they had to.
CoH ww1 wouldn't be ww1. It would be ww2 but with slower tanks...
In other words a waste of time.
Total war on the other hand offers the ability for massed battles that isn't just blob rushes. Coordination on the large scale that was ww1.
If Total War WW1 ever releases, it needs to have melee units like troops with shovels and trench clubs, units with body armor, which was rare but it would still be amazing to see a few units, and have mechanics centered around trenches.
Edit: Also, it would be interesting to see some soldiers wearing gloves.
Edit2: 11:46 But bf1 encouraged randomness, grenade spam, and ultimately made skill in the game irrelevant, because of its normie friendly stuff like the intentionally unbalanced weapons. And bolt-action rifles and melee weapons were next to useless, which were the 2 categories that were mostly used in the war.
The main problem with a WW1 total war, is that it simply could not work as a Total War, both in the battle and in the campaign. The best way to have a RTS style game is something akin to the Company of Heroes or Men of War series, where it is squad/individial based armies. Total War simply could not work with large units the way it does now. Furthemore, if we take say the western front, the maps would just consist of assaulting a trench line with nothing other than a frontal charge after an artillery bombardment. Armies on the battlefield simply did not move in the same way that they do in the Total War franchise.
Moreover, how do you translate this into the campaign? The way armies work in the Total War franchise is that they stack up into single units and march together. However this way of marching armies on the grand campaign simply does not work with the way frontlines worked during First World War. The best way to simulate something like this, is as is done in the Hearts of Iron series, with different tiles representing a much smaller part of the map.
People may say that "What about the Napoleon Total War mod?". I've played this mod, and though the reskins are amazing, and a lot of detail is placed onto it, the mod can only replicate the war in the first months, before trench warfare, and even during then it doesn't feel right. Most of the war on the west consisted of constant artillery bombardments and sitting around doing nothing. In the naval aspect, the mod completely fails, and even a modern Total War could not recreate early 20th Century naval combat without botching it.
The way I see it is that Total War simply couldn't pull this off without it completely changing the way Total War is. In other words, it would have to be a non-total war game for it to work.
I disagree, I think the infantry gameplay is totally doable, even on a large scale. It would require innovation, for SURE, but that's exactly what makes the prospect so exciting. We all know how a med 3 or Vicky would work, but WW1 is more of an open question.
I would settle for a big World War I DLC for a Victorian Total War, though.
@@happycompy Thank you for making this video. Personally, I agree with Ignacio here, I simply do not see how WW1 trench warfare could translate into enjoyable Total War mechanics. You say that this part requires the most innovation, and you would be correct, so why don't you give us your view of how this new form of warfare would function in the game? How would you make a trench battle that is both enjoyable and historically accurate? How would you make it so that the battle doesn't become a static battle between 2 trenches with almost nothing to do (besides charging to the other trench, controlling artillery and maybe flying units)?
@@pabloscarpati6606 I'd handle it by downplaying the Trench Warfare aspect of WW1. The trench warfare meme only occurred on the western front, and only for the middle period of the war. The other fronts were very fluid and mobile warfare dominated, and even the west was mobile in the beginning and the end of the war (Germany developed some innovative assault tactics). The infantry needs MUCH more map interaction in terms of taking cover (shell-holes, trenches, etc) and they need individual entity AI like I said in the video. That's the meat of it.
I'd like to see Empire 2 take place in the 19th century, after Waterloo, and either end with World War 1, or have a very sizeable DLC or that covers it. There are so many events in the 19th century that set the stage for WW1 that the two would be an ideal pair.
Personally I would love a Pike and Shot Total War game, it would be a good mix of Empire's ranged combat and more traditional combat, plus it is a really cool time period.
Just found this video. Before now, i always thought i was alone in wishing for a ww1 total war. Rite on brother!
WW1 is fundamentally ill suited to how the combat system works. Moving battlions of infantry around was something that was decisively ended prior to WW1 and by the later part of the war they'd moved onto semi-modern forms of unit deployment. Trenches became common late war due to the droves of inexperienced civilians coming onto the lines but early war the fronts remained mobile and the front was constantly moving around. Eventually things bogged down as you ended up with unbelievably complicated defensive lines as the technological advantages of the time gave a prepared defender such an significant advantage over the attacker. Total war just isn't built for that. Total war's engine is also not suited to the scale of the war nor the ways in which artillery and aircraft were deployed. The only thing that you could maybe do with a total war engine that happens during WW1 are the various fleet engagements. That's about it.
If you want the ideal WW1 game you'd want something along the lines of a merge between Operation Star and Hearts of Iron. Total war and modern war is a terrible idea.
I would think you'd need something closer to wargame or steel division to pull it off. It would give you the space you'd need for deploying artillery and trench lines. You could even control full companies or regiments of men to get the scale right.
Precisely my point. The things you would need to change in tw in order to have it imitate the characteristics of ww1 and later on simply are too divergent.
A huge part of the identity of tw lies in army stacks represented on the campaign map by a commander model walking around to indicate the army’s location and zone of control. On the battle map, the army breaks down into some 20 unit cards that are made up a a bunch of identical soldiers walking in formation. This works well for ancient era, medieval, and even up to napoleonic and victorian eras. This breaks down as you get closer to ww1.
Abandoning these characteristics in order to have armies span entire fronts, no more large units walking in step but rather small companies where the soldier models act more independently, etc…(and that’s just with armies), supply lines, reinforcements, command hq’s, etc would also pull away from some aspects of tw that are very integral to its identity. Which isn’t to say some of these would t be welcome (I’ve been waiting so long for a good supply line mechanic so I can properly use embargo and sieges to win wars with no casualties). But a lot of the necessary elements work for games like strategic command or hoi but not tw.
It would need some rewriting, especially into the "micro/Macro" interface. Probably something akin to sins of solar empire.
I’m seeing something wholly different from the typical tw recipe that fans are accustomed to and recognize. I want to make it clear, it’s not that I think it would be impossible for ca to make a tw ww1 game. But rather, that product would look and play nothing like any of the previous tw games. It would be a complete departure from fundamental characteristics that make tw, tw.
Arguably, before we got the benefit of hindsight, it seemed like etw had a similar issue where it seemed like battles with purely ranged/musket units would depart from the sword/cav/archer dynamic that was tw at the time. But really it wasn’t because you still had army stacks walking around the map, you still had large units of men marching in formation, etc…everything that was in the previous tw games except now most everything shoots at each other from range.
For a ww1 game though, core aspects like army stacks giving way to whatever would replace it to allow frontline armies, units of men marching in formation, what constitutes as a battle (one army stacks marching into an opposing army stack), the duration of battles stretching beyond one turn, reinforcements, etc etc…all these changes would end up making something less like a tw game and more like a hoi game.
@@korcommander Play operation star. Your concern doesn't make sense.
This got me thinking on how you would make a world war 2 total war game
An underrated RUclipsr with solid narrating voice keep it up man
Wow, thank you very much!
Empire 2 NEEDS to be next i think. Using the lessons theyve learned in the last few games to correct their failures in empire 1
I would like to see a Mongolian Invasion Total War game. You get to play Asian factions, Middle Eastern factions, and Eastern European faction. It would be humongous campaign map but it's such a interesting time.
Okay yes, but...imagine all the horse archers. 🤮
Just imagine playing as Japan and defeat Mongols, and expanding to Poland and Egypt lol
@@happycompy It would be like Attila on roids lol
@@takashi1488 I'm cringing in my skin just thinking about it.
The biggest issue I think would be in terms of actual combat mechanics in how do you balance the artillery, trenches, machine guns, chemical warfare, and air power.
Meh, NTW has a mod for WW1 and its good enough for me. I also couldn't see it happening because we've never seen CA develop trench warfare besides mods.
I wanted a Victorian Era game because it would make ETW and NTW part of a trilogy and I think it would be an interesting era to explore. Close seconds are ETW2 and MTW3. The American Civil War would probably be put into the Victorian Era as a DLC but it could be a standalone.
Victorian Era would basically be an Empire 2 without it being a full remake of the era, which I think is pretty cool. WW1, Empire 2, Victorian, Medieval 3, Mythology. I'd take any of those.
My problem with that is that ETW was not a good game, and that period deserves another take. NTW was "alright", saved by mods.
I'd like to add that the challenge of handling WW1 is part of why I'd like to see how CA would handle it. We all know Victoria TW could work, but WW1 is less certain.
10:08 There was the crimean war, Franco-Prussian war and even more in-between the napoleonic wars and world war one, there was not peace in-between them.
I would like a late 19th century game though, so like Franco-Prussian war.
A Great War Total War is all I’ve wanted for a long time
This video is still relevant. I would buy WW1 TW over Medieval 3 or Empire 2. The point is that fortifications and infantry holding the line were still dominant in this period. Air power and tanks could be deployed just like gunpowder in Medieval 2, in late 1916/17 and not be so dominant until 18. I'm convinced that people say they don't want WW1 because to them war is only horse, spear, sword and bow. I see no diference (besides technology)between a tank charge to a heavy cav one in medieval times. Both are tough, armored units designed for pressuring enemy lines to break them into losing cohesion. I'm also sure that most of the people who are strongly against the time setting (maybe not your case, reader) never played a RTS set in the period. My suggestion for it: Empire Earth 2. The campaign levels set in WW1 can help imagining some of the potential for a future project.
10:10 "But what we absolutely CANNOT have is soldiers standing still shooting across the battlefield at eachother like its the 18th century."
This might, and I mean _might_ apply to the first few battles in World War 1 before everything devolved into attrition + trench warfare. The Battle of the Frontiers saw the French and German patriotically marching across the golden and green plains of northeastern France, almost like a scene from the Napoleonic Wars. When both sides did engage, I'd imagine some did stand out in the open and some hid behind rocks, tree lines, and along river banks.
I LOVED how you gave that little history lesson! it was very immersive haha!
Thanks man! You're the 4th person or so to mention that, so I may do more of those in the future!
The form and tactics of warfare was completely different, it would have to be at least squad based to make any semblance of sense in the setting and then it wouldn’t be a total war game, furthermore the campaign wouldn’t work either, in total war you lead an army into the enemy and have a pitched battle. In ww1 you have constant conflict over a shifting front line. It just doesn’t work.
Solid production again!
My personal wishlist would be (in order of preference)
1: LoTR
2: Age of colonization (pike and shot transitioning into age of gunpowder) This would start around 1500 till 1700.
3: WW1 era, with a historical accurate mode starting around 1900 and ending in a full scale war between remaining factions in 1914.
I would like to add that Total War games have always felt quite blend in terms of geopolitics and intrigue. Now I don't need Paradox studio style intrigue and depth, but some form of buff for major nations until 1914 or somehow a technology tree leading up to 1914 where you have to make tactical choices would seem like a nice addition to change up the pace and gameplay, where going to war early would be fatal.
LoTR is an obvious money-printer, and I'd certainly contribute to the money-printing hahahaha. Pike and Shot I'm not sold on, although it DOES contain the 30 Years War, which is pretty epic.
@@happycompy i mean there's the conquest of the Americas, lots of stuff happening in Europe with the Ottomans especially, plenty of developments in India, the age of the Samurai in Japan all bundled into one. It would probably be the biggest project yet, much bigger than any of the others, which makes it a highly unlikely product to ever release haha
@@jaco6971 Oh you mean a FULL MAP Age of Sail game? That changes my opinion, that'd be sick.
I want this to be a collab with Paradox
Just imagine the posibilities, the Sandbox chaos of Hearts of Iron and the Epic Battles of Total War
Would be unbelievably good.
The First World War was a war of attrition. I’ve thought that if there were to be a First World War TW, it would be both historical and an interesting mechanic if your armies could dig in on the campaign map, both armies suffering attrition but supply lines reducing that and battles would be you (or the AI) ‘going over the top’ into no man’s land and attacking the enemy trenches which would be a high risk-high reward kind of situation. A success would be huge for you but a failure could cause severe casualties. Fun and historical.
Good idea!
And also needs in the credits the last post on the bugle, a minutes silence and the names of some of the dead to really hammer home the tragedy
Out of the 384 hours I have on Napoleon Total War on Steam, easily half of that, if not more, was spent in the Great War mod. While very janky at times, that mod was the most fun experience I've ever had in a Total War game, and even after several years of not playing TW games, I still hover over the 'play' button every so often, dreading the potentially sleepless night it would trigger should I give it a go.
The only issue I see with a WW1 TW game is how do you recreate the stupidly high death tolls without annihilating entire four-stack armies in every battle. In the WW1 mod, unless I kept my soldiers in their trenches while hammering the AI with artillery, I'd end up in battles where two thirds or more of my infantry would get slaughtered fighting in the open. The game would need a constant trickle of reinforcements to be in place, and army sizes will have to be increased exponentially, both in the size of individual units, as well as the amount of units you can field per stack.
Mowas2 has the best soldier AI
Lmao, I thought this was some kind of announcement at first. I yelped out loud. I would play the shit out of Total War: The Great War.
There's only one thing I can really add to what you said and it's regarding atmosphere. If CA plans to do a game like this they absolutely have to add a system where each turn you get a letter from a soldier sent back home where you can hear their thoughts, for example:
"Hello ma, pa, it's the day before I head out to the front lines to deal with the Jerry, wish me luck and tell my Margret to keep making her homemade pies
Sincerely George, X"
And hell if they wanted to they could use this to have an actual story to the game
That's a really interesting idea!
This total war should have an interactive campaing-battle map in real time to work.
The pitch kinda sounds more logistically possible if you pitch it as Men of War Assault Squad 2 with a campaign compared to a Total War WW1. However, awesome video! Earned a subscription from me!
Thank you!
I agree with many points, but the real issue for me would be the diplomacy. Once WW1 is won and over with, end of game. It would run the risk of been repetitive.
However, if they set the game during the European period of peace in the 1800's, then that would fix this issue. WW1 would be an end-game mechanic, with your own built up alliances. And then you have smaller conflicts like the Franco-Prussian War and maybe Crimean War to fill in the gaps.
(maybe a historical ww1 would be best as a DLC for this)
I've been convinced throughout the comments section that a WW1 GIGA DLC (on the scale of FoTS or Mythos) for a Victoria Total War would be the most likely way I get my WW1 wish.
I'd want the 30 years war period. A good rock paper scissors dynamic between pike, cavalry and musket. Good opportunity to explore religious and political diplomacy and lots of factions and forms of government.
Tbh, I've never played Total War, but when you mentioned BF1 gas masks, an idea poped on my head:
"Warning: Your infantry lacks gas masks equipment. In confrontation with mustard gas it will suffer severe casualities".
I mean that well equipped infantry, will automatically put their masks on, when attacked with gas.
I think that one thing that could add realism. You can have field battles, without trenches etc, like happened on the eastern front BUT of you don't get a decisive victory, both armies dig trenches and are unable to move until one or the other side does get a decisive victory. Fighting again and again every turn.
I really wish they would make this. Obviously it would be extremely challenging to design such a game. Few people realize just how large of a conflict the Great War was. The armies involved dwarf anything we have seen since world war 2 and battles often lasted for months. The Battle of the Somme lasted 4 months and the British alone lost over 125,000 men in that battle. To be honest I'm not sure how you could accurately represent that. The other problem is that the Great War was a war of attrition, basically a series of sieges lasting multiple years periodically interrupted by massive costly battles with casualties in the millions. That said I still believe it can be done. Battles that took place early in the war and after 1917 were fairly mobile and there were decisive battles that occurred outside the western front, in Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. To make it work you would need a global map, not just Europe and the western front and you would need a way to scale down some of the colossal battles like Verdun, the Somme, the battle of Ypres and Gallipoli in a way that didn't involve rendering the movements of tens of thousands of soldiers moving across the screen all at once melting everyone's graphic's cards. I think it would be a great challenge but one worth doing.
I think the focus would have to be on breaking or even avoiding the deadlock. World War 1 was basically like a battle of Go in the beginning where each side tried to outmaneuver the other until the trenches in Europe reached the sea. Obviously no one wants to play a game where all your men just sit in trenches and shell each other for a year or two. Rather you would need a global strategic map to ensure that your always actively fighting somewhere while you prepare for a breakthrough on the Western Front. Like the war the first few battles would be decisive and brief followed by long sieges where both sides dig in. It's a mistake to think that World War one was just one long waiting game. There were many battles but they were so costly, so enormous so resource intensive that they couldn't be sustained.The progression of Technology would obviously dominate this type of game as the belligerents developed more devastating weapons and the first side to use them had an immediate tactical advantage which would then quickly disappear.It would also need to be flexible. It should be possible to change the outcome of the war such as if the Battle of the Somme was decisive and the Germans were pushed back or if the Triple Entente had managed to push Turkey out of the war early on. Or if the Germans were able to take Paris when they executed the Schlieffen Plan or manged to push the British out of France once Russia had been defeated. History didn't necessary have to follow the path it took. Mistakes and miscalculations were made on both sides, mistakes that the player might not make possibly leading to a different outcome.
I remember there being a huge push on the forums to get them to make a WW1 game. There was a ton of detail put into it and some of the team members even participated and said they liked the idea. Instead they decided to make Rome 2, not only setting them up for the uninspired redrudging of their past hits but also showing how little effort they would put into making the series anything other than a battle simulator.
That sounds epic. Shame what happened with Rome 2's abysmal launch after riding high with FoTS. I will say, Three Kingdoms gave me hope again that CA is capable of making deeper campaigns.
Yeah what they should do is implement a call to arms style infantry system which allows single selection of troops and it allows for troops to fire while moving
Very nice video man. Enjoyed it. Would very much like to see this come to life.
You and me both!
Your suggestion to make the individual units seek cover when under fire, imo, was best implemented by the system used in Tom Clansy's Endwar. If an area an infantry unit is nearby offers cover, they actively utilize it. The ones who lack cover, die very, very fast lmao. However, to answer your end of the video question, I'd like to see the scope of Empire total war and Warhammer, married with the polish and point in time that Fall of the Samurai takes place. So essentially, WWI. It would be truly glorious to have a game with that degree of details. The most satisfying part of Empire for me, was in running an empire. All the little details of how you build up your territory that gradually was phased out overtime to a simplified version in Napoleon Total War, and entirely removed with the province system that now dominates TW games.
There was a WW1 mod I used years ago with Total War Napoleonic Wars. The only thing it didn't really capture well was trenches. You ended up fighting the entire war with just mass casualty melees and mass charges.
Fall of the samurai is a great example of how guns can be made to work really well in total war.
The civil war up to the end of ww1 would be incredible. Maybe 4 turns per year with each season(summer,winter,mud). You get the change from muskets to machine guns with cavalry and then tanks. A problem would be balancing artillery. Which would be better accuracy with their experience. If you get a stack of rifleman to hold a kind and 10 artillery with silver tier/gold experience and your rifleman won’t even see the enemy
Yeah artillery will definitely be a nightmare to balance.
I have always said that TW: Great War would work and I'm happy to meet someone who also agrees!
I want to say I don't recall how I found your channel, I don't even remember subscribing but man am I glad, it's great to see people continuing to talk about historical TW as much as I love Fantasy I always said they should have made a new brand Total War Fantasy or something to prevent them having to try and satisfy both markets but anyway I appreciate the videos and the love of Aliens! Hoo-rah
What an absolute badass! You do NOT want to fuck with Jurassic Gaming!
I found this video because it what I was looking for would WWl work in Total War, as I am not very well versed in the war.
The 4 Total War games I want the most with no specific order.
Medieval 3: Medieval 2 was the first Total War game I played and it blew me away! It is still great today but it would be fun having it a little more modern.. not modern in style as game is getting worse but better graphics, little less jank, the game is close to perfection.
Empire 2: I am Swedish and being able to play as my country and build an Empire is amazing, it is not often I get to play as my country. Empire was fun but had allot of problems, I hope they could make a new one that works a little better, also the smoke of the gunpowder and artillery fire would look amazing with little more modern graphics.
Great War Total War: I want to both learn more and play a little different setting, I think it could be very interesting.
Song of ice and fire: I would love a Game of Thrones total war, the world building is great so you have the options for very different armies, I would most likely put it around Robert's Rebellion because that means no dragons or ice zombies. The politics and warfare would be so fun.
All of those sound great tbh. I'd play them all!
Watched a video on the assassination of Ferdinand. Princip was trying to shoot the guard behind Franz's wife but she rose up from her seat and got in the way.
empire 2 coupled with Victoria the way that empire and napoleon were together just makes the most sense.
As someone who’s recently gotten back into both Medieval 2 and Empire, I’d be super happy with either Medieval 3 or Empire 2 (although slightly preferring Med) which is great for me because they’ll most likely be one of those 🤣
Total war would have to drop the clump army fighting style, but as far as charging after the whistle from the trenches go. Yes, I can see that work, but it would have to take a lot of influence from Company of Heroes overall.
The one thing they would need to do is have massive unit scales and increase replenish rate. If they really wanted the essence of ww1 it will need to have lots of casualties, but being able to recoup or recruit troops quickly will keep gameplay at a decent pace
Dude thank you! BF1 was one of my favorite games I ever played and started my love for anything ww1! Just seeing a bomber plane flying in about to drop bombs on me at the ottoman castle map as I dived into defenses was just so immersive and atmospheric it really got me ! Sorry for all the comments I got hyped XD love your stuff first time I seen you subbed now !
Thank you for sharing man. Glad to know that I'm not alone with my love for Battlefield 1!!!
On the subject of individual soldier AI, I was impressed back in the day by CnC3 infantry behavior. In the base game, GDI infantry was moving in formation and sticking to walls for cover while NOD militants behave like a mob. In Kane's Wrath, the reskinned militants in military gear behave like GDI infantry. IMHO, it was basic and inconsequential on gameplay, but really immersive.