Where next for Total War?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-28 06:14am

How about Klingon: Total War? Their tactics are essentially melee-based anyway, and their opposition is apparently on a similar level since almost all ground battles in Star Trek devolve into hand-to-hand combat eventually.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-10-28 06:30am

Darth Wong wrote:How about Klingon: Total War? Their tactics are essentially melee-based anyway, and their opposition is apparently on a similar level since almost all ground battles in Star Trek devolve into hand-to-hand combat eventually.

hmmmm... would it be possible to do something on the historical Klingon Wars? (I assume there are some)

A cross between TW and ST could revitalise the ST computer game market, if not ST it'self. Plus you would appeal to both strategy gamers and ST fans.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-10-28 06:40am

Would the Chinese government really care that much if a China: Total War game was made? I don't see why they would suddenly cry foul over one game after like 20 years without a peep over all the other games that focused on Chinese wars from hundreds of years ago (at least that I know of, which I admit I don't know much).

Well, they did ban Hearts of Iron for depicting the war between the Nationalists, the ChiComs, and the Japanese, and I think they banned the EUII and Victoria, which depicted China from the 1400's through the 1800's.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-10-28 06:47am

Antarctica: Total War.

I saw an article about it on GS not too long ago. There'll be four factions, Penguin, Polar Bear, nothing, and Seal. ultimately nothing would win, (As is the case historically) And the Polar Bears are driven to extinction. You will then lead the Polar Bear oddyssey northward to the tropics. Then north again when they get too hot. there is going to be alot of attention to detail on this one, too, as penguins lounge on the beach and seals fight amongst each for a piece of beach to lay about on. Also *heads hits the table*

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2004-10-28 06:50am

I suppose a Moose Rebellion: Total War might be out of the question?

I thought the new EA Battle for Middle Earth was supposed to be running off the Total War engine anyway?

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-10-28 07:05am

South America

Maya's, Inca's, Aztecs, Spanisch conquistadores,...

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-10-28 07:12am

Could redo Colonization into a TW. You've got the European countries and all the Native Americans to work with.

Laughing Mechanicus · Post by **Laughing Mechanicus** » 2004-10-28 08:01am

The_Lumberjack wrote:I thought the new EA Battle for Middle Earth was supposed to be running off the Total War engine anyway?

Nope, it's running on an upgraded C&C Generals engine.

The South American idea is a good suggestion - the first game based on their internal wars and then the expansion pack dealing with the Spanish.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2004-10-28 09:25am

I want Medieval 2 first. I love the setting, but now that I had a tiny little taste of RTW's engine, I can't force myself to go back to Medieval. When I got my fix, the developers can do whatever the hell they want with the franchise

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-10-28 09:49am

Perhaps a Britain: Total War following the establishment of the British Empire, or possibly one following the american rebellion or civil war and war with the natives.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2004-10-28 10:15am

i don't think the PRC will find a Romance of Three Kingdoms era game objectionable - i mean KOEI made like what, 7 of those already? at minimum?

*edit* and i don't recall any fuss made over them by the chinese.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2004-10-28 10:21am

How about something completely different?

Space: Total War

Instead of fighting over provinces and such, they expand to space, and use the engine both for fleet battles with thousands of individual starships and for planetary assaults.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-10-28 10:36am

Maybe HT's Great War series? That'd be interesting, from the Civil War to the Second Mexican War to the Great War, to WWII...

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-10-28 10:40am

MKSheppard wrote:
They already are. They just use a single soldier to represent what, 3 or 4
people in ROME.

How does that work? All the soldiers seem to be doing different things, and there's definitiely causality between *thwack* Legionary stabs and *ack* peasant dies.

Who cares, it looks fucking mad either way.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-28 11:08am

Vympel wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
They already are. They just use a single soldier to represent what, 3 or 4
people in ROME.
How does that work? All the soldiers seem to be doing different things, and there's definitiely causality between *thwack* Legionary stabs and *ack* peasant dies.

Who cares, it looks fucking mad either way.

A historical legionary cohort had 480 or so men. On Huge unit size, a legionary cohort has 160 men.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-28 01:08pm

AniThyng wrote:i don't think the PRC will find a Romance of Three Kingdoms era game objectionable - i mean KOEI made like what, 7 of those already? at minimum?

*edit* and i don't recall any fuss made over them by the chinese.

That's because "historical realism" and "ROT3K" do not go together.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2004-10-28 01:23pm

MKSheppard wrote:
That's because "historical realism" and "ROT3K" do not go together.

yesh, well, RTW isn't exactly up there in historical realism anyway. it's obvious the minute one comes across the egyptians...

Duken · Post by **Duken** » 2004-10-28 02:01pm

Why not Warhammer:Total War?

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2004-10-28 02:26pm

Duken wrote:Why not Warhammer:Total War?

Because of liscencing, and because Warhammer wants you to play Dawn of War, not Total War.

Bill Door · Post by **Bill Door** » 2004-10-28 02:58pm

Wrong part of the franchise.
Dawn of War is Warhammer 40,000
I'd expect Duken to be talking about Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2004-10-28 03:42pm

Bill Door wrote:Wrong part of the franchise.
Dawn of War is Warhammer 40,000
I'd expect Duken to be talking about Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Yeah, I realized that after I posted, but I was on the run.

The issue still stands of liscencing, and the likely fact that they'd rather you play a Warhammer Fantasy version of Dawn of War than Total War.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-28 04:01pm

AniThyng wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
That's because "historical realism" and "ROT3K" do not go together.
yesh, well, RTW isn't exactly up there in historical realism anyway. it's obvious the minute one comes across the egyptians...

Yeah, but Pharaonic Egypt is cooler than Ptolemaic Egypt.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-10-28 04:23pm

Utsanomiko wrote:
Bill Door wrote:Wrong part of the franchise.
Dawn of War is Warhammer 40,000
I'd expect Duken to be talking about Warhammer Fantasy Battles.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted, but I was on the run.

The issue still stands of liscencing, and the likely fact that they'd rather you play a Warhammer Fantasy version of Dawn of War than Total War.

True, but it'd be cool if they made an Epic style WH40k game complete with Titans and all with the Rome engine.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-28 04:24pm

I'm sure there will be a mod out eventually.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-28 04:43pm

Greece. You could include everything from the Peloponessian (spelling?) Wars to the Persian invasions to Alexander of Macedon.

Egypt, from First Dynasty through Eighteenth (I think that's how many there were). If we get more archaeological information, perhaps include Zeroth dynasty also.

The Americas. Mexica, Maya, Olmec, Toltec, League of the Iriqouis (damn, I can't spell today). Atlatls, jaguar knights, and actually have religion make a difference.