Who else wants Total War to go modern atleast once?

With the recent announcement of the next total war being Chinese themed, I lost hope that next total war would bring the series to the modern era. Although i do commend them for taking it slow and slowly going through the generations i want them skip a few and bring it to atleast the late 1900's. Even a DLC or mod would do. So do you want them to continue to go slowly or do you feel like i do? If their is a mod for a present setting could you guys inform me?

I think it'd be cool if it starts at the beginning of WWI and ends at around 1990. I do wish they wouldn't do Shogun 2 and did a new era, although Shogun could use a reboot.

try "Company of Heroes"

As for Total War, much better sticking to swords and arrows

No.. Because modern wars would not work in the way Total War does it now.. They are long range fights with infantry and armor holding down areas.. I can't see how this would be very fun what so ever. The last war I thnk could be plausible would be World War 1 or World War 2.

Lol, its not Chinese themed, its Japanese themed, huge difference. Plus the gameplay wouldnt make sense as a total war game. Also, there is a Great War (WWI) mod for Nappy. Dr_Brocoli

World war 1 would be real crappy.. A trench war in which you advance tens of thousands of troops only to get them mowed down by machine guns or choked to death by mustard gas.

Absolutely not.

I would much rather see it go Fantasy before modern. If anything, World in Conflct would be the closest thing to a modern Total War.

After seeing the reasons why, i think i was in the wrong and it doesn't make sense to go modern and sorry for making the mistake of Chinese themed instead of Japanese

No, If Anything they should go further back in time! Caveman Total war

How would that work? Soldiers don't fight in ranks and formations anymore.

WWI is about as far as the whole empire thing goes, after that international politics make it impossible to become empires like pre WWI.

try "Company of Heroes"

As for Total War, much better sticking to swords and arrows

wkwan

How would that work? Soldiers don't fight in ranks and formations anymore.

Robbler

Every time this topic comes up I loathe statements like these. First of all why would anyone think Company of Heroes is a good substitute for a WWII TW style game, it has no diplomacy or grand strategy, nor massive engagements. Also, although "swords and arrows" make for good TW settings we're kind of spoiled for choice already.

Secondly I hate how people always assume that if they set a TW game in a WWII setting it means that they wouldn't revise the combat system at all and automatically jump to the conclusion that CA are so stuck in their ways that they would have you lining up tanks and soliders and smashing them into each other in open fields.

Obviously they would have to change the game up to make it work but still keep the epic scale, everyone needs to stop thinking Medieval with tanks instead of horses and machine guns instead of archers.

WWII is the only time the planet has been at Total War.

Not really, I don't see how it would work.

Mongol Total War FTW please.

I really believe the total war series should stay away from wwI..

What makes me like total war, is the dual layer about map/battle. I for instance love seeing, how I upgrade my men with leather, and the next battle I play with upgraded soldiers (in leather armour) -there is visual difference, the fact, that what I do on the map, affects the men in my battle, visually and statistically.

But what I like most about the total war series, is seeing my men storming towards a castle/line of defenders and hear them charge with their swords aimed at the enemy. The powerfull (if successfull) charge of cavalry into the flank or rear of enemies and the brutal warfare of swords/armours.

I like to see my men get covered in blood as the battle progress and I like the brutal "one on one" fighting we have with swords/armours.

I thinkEmpire Total war, and Napoleon total war, are good games, but I also think, and this is shared by alot of other tw players (amongst other websites www.twcenter.net) that total war belongs in an era of swords and armour.

Empire and Napoleon takes away the "rpg" or the "personal" feeling of the grand campaign and the actual battles. Instead of having men that have fought alongside your general for years, and which you have upgraded with better swords and armour, you have an army looking almost the same as the enemies you are fighting.

You don't get up and personal in a charge, the same way you do with swords and armour. When you actually do charge, the combat doesn't really feel "right" compared to the earlier total war games.

And yes I do know, that you can have a general who are attached to the same soldiers during a campagin, but he does not feel as "important" as he did in earlier eras, simply because he is "just" another graduate/clone from the military academy and you can hire another one almost like him,with ease.

We don't have many games that are focusing on medieval warfare (sword/armour) compared to modern warfare. I personally believe more than half the games atm,are about modern warfare, and less than half is medieval.

So..in my oppinion there is no need to change something that aint broke, there is no need to develop a new concept and there is no need to try and change the player fan base, when the allready existing player fan base are loyal.

All we need are upgraded visuals, and IMPROVED concepts of games such as rome, shogun and medieval, and if we go into wwI- there will be nothing left of personality or "intimate" feeling to the soldiers you control, or the generals leading them.

Besides, swords pwnz guns!! :P

[QUOTE="wkwan"]

try "Company of Heroes"

As for Total War, much better sticking to swords and arrows

the_mitch28

How would that work? Soldiers don't fight in ranks and formations anymore.

Robbler

Every time this topic comes up I loathe statements like these. First of all why would anyone think Company of Heroes is a good substitute for a WWII TW style game, it has no diplomacy or grand strategy, nor massive engagements. Also, although "swords and arrows" make for good TW settings we're kind of spoiled for choice already.

Secondly I hate how people always assume that if they set a TW game in a WWII setting it means that they wouldn't revise the combat system at all and automatically jump to the conclusion that CA are so stuck in their ways that they would have you lining up tanks and soliders and smashing them into each other in open fields.

Obviously they would have to change the game up to make it work but still keep the epic scale, everyone needs to stop thinking Medieval with tanks instead of horses and machine guns instead of archers.

WWII is the only time the planet has been at Total War.

They would probably change their sometimes lacking programming and mechanis of soliders, to fight differently than in other TW games.

But that is besides the point. The majority of TW players, do NOT wan't to play a modern era TW game, hundreds of polls have been made about this.

And I think what the previous poster is suggesting, is that company of heroes allready got modern warfare, ask them to put on a useable worldmap along with their games. They are good at making modern warfare rts, don't ask the experts on Medieval warfare, to waste their resources on something, that would probably be nothing but trash, since all their experience and efforts so far have been around medieval and early modern warfare (which I think have been the worst games so far, they are still LEAGUES better than most of the other "games" or "garbage" on the market, but compared to TW quality, they sux)

(jesus this laptop sux, space doesnt work and mouse jumps into text all the time)

They would probably change their sometimes lacking programming and mechanis of soliders, to fight differently than in other TW games.

But that is besides the point. The majority of TW players, do NOT wan't to play a modern era TW game, hundreds of polls have been made about this.

And I think what the previous poster is suggesting, is that company of heroes allready got modern warfare, ask them to put on a useable worldmap along with their games. They are good at making modern warfare rts, don't ask the experts on Medieval warfare, to waste their resources on something, that would probably be nothing but trash, since all their experience and efforts so far have been around medieval and early modern warfare (which I think have been the worst games so far, they are still LEAGUES better than most of the other "games" or "garbage" on the market, but compared to TW quality, they sux)

(jesus this laptop sux, space doesnt work and mouse jumps into text all the time)

Walincas

I know it probably wont happen, I just hate the silly reasoning people use when this topic comes up.

The main problem I see when people suggest Company of Heroes is that they don't understand differing gameplay in the RTS genre. Games like CoH are much more tactical RTS games where as games like the TW series are much more strategical RTS games.

You could add a grand campaign map to CoH but it still wouldn't capture the epic scale of battles in WWII nor would it make strategy a bigger focus in battles.

It's entirely possible, provided that they (obviously) adapt the combat system to the modern era... of which one major change would be limiting troop numbers per battle to no more than two or three hundred. Single field engagements with thousands of men simply didn't happen anymore, unless you like to loose a lot of troops.

Also, fighting would take place almost entirely in urban environments which wouldn't really make for giant epic tank charges. And you probably wouldn't see any hundred-gun artillery barrages capable of levelling everything within a two thousand foot radius.

I know it probably wont happen, I just hate the silly reasoning people use when this topic comes up.

The main problem I see when people suggest Company of Heroes is that they don't understand differing gameplay in the RTS genre. Games like CoH are much more tactical RTS games where as games like the TW series are much more strategical RTS games.

You could add a grand campaign map to CoH but it still wouldn't capture the epic scale of battles in WWII nor would it make strategy a bigger focus in battles.

the_mitch28

You are right, they would have a hard time trying to capture an epic scale battle, unless they changed their focus from tactical to strategic,if they did however, relic/thq would probably still be able to create a game, that I would buy instantly (as I do their other games :)).

I guess one of my other points is, that companies should stick to what they are good at (I know shifting from tactical to strategic is NOT sticking "with it") and in my oppinion Creative Assembly are masters when it comes to epic medieval games :)

Besides.. Earlier relic games had more of a strategic layer than DOWII/Chaos Rising.

But a WW I game with epic scale and a hint of controll via a grand map would be nice, and I embrace the idea, as long as CA stay miles away from it

ps. Seriusly, is there something wrong with forum? Its like, when I press the submit button, thetext I wrote down magically comes together without spaces.. Or is it just my crappy laptop, which im NOT gaming on, that are a little mysterious?

short version: Do the text change after you press "submit"?

Why everyone sooo much want mdoern TW game ? Game mechanics wouldnt work in modern times.

WWI is about as far as the whole empire thing goes, after that international politics make it impossible to become empires like pre WWI.

Wasdie

Well the British Empire still existed into the opening of World War 2.

[QUOTE="Dr_Brocoli"]Lol, its not Chinese themed, its Japanese themed, huge difference. Plus the gameplay wouldnt make sense as a total war game. Also, there is a Great War (WWI) mod for Nappy. sSubZerOo

World war 1 would be real crappy.. A trench war in which you advance tens of thousands of troops only to get them mowed down by machine guns or choked to death by mustard gas.

Hell no!

Not really, I don't see how it would work.

Mongol Total War FTW please.

snot_boogie

[QUOTE="wkwan"]

try "Company of Heroes"

As for Total War, much better sticking to swords and arrows

the_mitch28

How would that work? Soldiers don't fight in ranks and formations anymore.

Robbler

Every time this topic comes up I loathe statements like these. First of all why would anyone think Company of Heroes is a good substitute for a WWII TW style game, it has no diplomacy or grand strategy, nor massive engagements. Also, although "swords and arrows" make for good TW settings we're kind of spoiled for choice already.

Secondly I hate how people always assume that if they set a TW game in a WWII setting it means that they wouldn't revise the combat system at all and automatically jump to the conclusion that CA are so stuck in their ways that they would have you lining up tanks and soliders and smashing them into each other in open fields.

Obviously they would have to change the game up to make it work but still keep the epic scale, everyone needs to stop thinking Medieval with tanks instead of horses and machine guns instead of archers.

WWII is the only time the planet has been at Total War.

According to wikipedia

Total war is a war limitless in its scope in which a belligerent engages in the mobilization of all their available resources, in order to render beyond use their rival's capacity for resistance.

The practice of total war has been in use for centuries, but it was only in the middle to late 19th century that total war was identified by scholars as a separate clas of warfare. In a total war, there is less and sometimes no differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

Since the end of World War II, no industrial nations have fought such a large, decisive war, due to the availability of nuclear weapons whose destructive power would offset the advantages of victory.

So, really, there is no such thing as a clas of total war in modern wars. if such a game were to be made it would have to be completely fictitious.

besides, the idea just doesn't work. would you like to see a mount & blade: modern warfare? sure, they could adapt the gameplay and the weapons and the tactics, but there is no point to it.

it just would not work

battles in the modern day occur on battlefields thousands of square miles large, if not on a global basis

battles as they have been portrayed thus far in Total War occur on battlefields a couple square kilometers large.

ehm... no.

as a big fan of all TW games im really looking forward to Shogun 2 (Shogun 1 was already awesome) and i'm hoping to see Rome 2 after this

Nah, now what I want for Total War? I want Star Wars Total War or something.rmfd341

Id like to see it but I wouldn't hold my breath. They'll have to literally change the whole combat system to more COH for an example. It would be nice to have a modern day map to conquer (like Rise of Nations).

Go play hearts of iron 3. You'll love it. shakmaster13

Oh yeahhhh true, I hear the real time battles in Hearts of Iron are really good. No.

Part of what makes the TW series so good is being able to use your own tactics and strategies on the battlefield which can lead you to victory in even the most overwhelming of odds.

And for the record, I hated HOI3.

Going back to arrows after playing with muskets and the like of Empire is going to be horrible for me :( But I'll have to get used to it.

Warhammer total war (yes i know theres a mod) BUT A TRUE WARHAMMER TOTAL WAR WOULD BE KASHxBarcadiax

I might actually kill someone to make that game a reality.

turn-based world map, epic grand real time battles. Ooooooooh lordie!

A total war game based on Ants would be marvelous if the game design is done well. The impression will be seen as simplicity, but to play it will be to experience the excessive depth.

A total war game based on Ants would be marvelous if the game design is done well. The impression will be seen as simplicity, but to play it will be to experience the excessive depth.

OoSuperMarioO

If I can invent a way to communicate with Ants, I can rule the Planet...

[QUOTE="shakmaster13"]

Go play hearts of iron 3. You'll love it. the_mitch28

Oh yeahhhh true, I hear the real time battles in Hearts of Iron are really good. No.

Part of what makes the TW series so good is being able to use your own tactics and strategies on the battlefield which can lead you to victory in even the most overwhelming of odds.

And for the record, I hated HOI3.

[QUOTE="xBarcadiax"]Warhammer total war (yes i know theres a mod) BUT A TRUE WARHAMMER TOTAL WAR WOULD BE KASHmrbojangles25

I might actually kill someone to make that game a reality.

turn-based world map, epic grand real time battles. Ooooooooh lordie!

I don't see ever doing the universe justice.. Planets like Armegeddon literally have numerous millions to billions fighting on each side for over 50 years straight.

With the recent announcement of the next total war being Chinese themed, I lost hope that next total war would bring the series to the modern era. Although i do commend them for taking it slow and slowly going through the generations i want them skip a few and bring it to atleast the late 1900's. Even a DLC or mod would do. So do you want them to continue to go slowly or do you feel like i do? If their is a mod for a present setting could you guys inform me?

ASRCSR

Modern? Not me. I want a total remake of Shogun.

Modern? Not me. I want a total remake of Shogun.

jun_aka_pekto