• 58 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Enfield13 (988 posts) -

I have always wanted a WW2 game that is like Total War where you move company's and regiments or whatever around on a campaign map. WW2 interests me very much as I am very into that sort of thing books, historical movies and shows and even the games! what do you all think how fun would it be to run Germany, Britain, Italy, US or Soviets on the large map while smaller factions like Vichy French or New zealand are small factors like in Empire total war

#2 Posted by FUBAR24 (12185 posts) -
I would recommend Company of Heroes
#3 Posted by Enfield13 (988 posts) -

Own it. Beaten it.

#4 Posted by cobrax75 (8389 posts) -

I have actually heard that Order of War is directly derived off Total War games in some regards....its a large scalled RTT game as well.

#5 Posted by redbaron3 (984 posts) -
I think that the most modern war that the Total war franchise should touch is WW1... that being said I would GREATLY like a WW2 game much like Empire Total War with large scale battles coupled with Massive scale empire management (especialy if the player was given free choice on how to manage their nations policy's such as play as America and unsegregate the armies, or play as Germany and stop the Holocuast)
#6 Posted by Wasdie (50596 posts) -

I think WWI would make a better total war game. I really think it would.

#7 Posted by Mr__Peanut (828 posts) -

once you throw tanks into Total war you ruin it.

#8 Posted by Mr__Peanut (828 posts) -

Although I admit, company of heroes with a TOTAL WAR style campaign map would be awesome.

#9 Posted by Brendissimo35 (1930 posts) -

Absolutely not. Total war has gone about as far as it can (excluding expansions for empire). I think they should do a Shogun 2.

#10 Posted by pvtdonut54 (8554 posts) -

Aye, so what will be WW1:TW? Who can live in a gas trench the longest?

#11 Posted by purple_MAN1832 (2125 posts) -

Maybe Ruse when it comes out, but it looks pretty simplistic (as far as combat/units go).

#12 Posted by Enfield13 (988 posts) -

I just want a game with a total war style map where you can pick your country and allies and move your armies around.

#13 Posted by supertegwyn (1584 posts) -

I have always wanted a WW2 game that is like Total War where you move company's and regiments or whatever around on a campaign map. WW2 interests me very much as I am very into that sort of thing books, historical movies and shows and even the games! what do you all think how fun would it be to run Germany, Britain, Italy, US or Soviets on the large map while smaller factions like Vichy French or New zealand are small factors like in Empire total war

Enfield13

Yeah, a WWII Total War game would be awsome, but Total War: World at War (WWI,WWII) would be AWSOME!

#14 Posted by IMaBIOHAZARD (1464 posts) -

Order of war is just that: a WW2 mix of CoH and Total War.

#15 Posted by Erik729 (1474 posts) -

I think WWI would make a better total war game. I really think it would.

Wasdie

I've never played a Total War game, but I don't think WW1 would really work with an RTS, historically speaking, of course. WW1 was such a terrible war because of the stalemates. There was not a lot of strategy involved, because the machine gun lead to trench warfare, causing long battles of attrition. It was the new technology, and lack thereof which made the war what it was: which was a terrible, stalemated, dug-in hell hole. The battle of Verdun was 10 months long, with next to no movement or progression; this does not sound like a fun strategy game to me. FPS, maybe. RTS, there's just no substance for it, it wouldn't work.

#16 Posted by IMaBIOHAZARD (1464 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I think WWI would make a better total war game. I really think it would.

Erik729

I've never played a Total War game, but I don't think WW1 would really work with an RTS, historically speaking, of course. WW1 was such a terrible war because of the stalemates. There was not a lot of strategy involved, because the machine gun lead to trench warfare, causing long battles of attrition. It was the new technology, and lack thereof which made the war what it was: which was a terrible, stalemated, dug-in hell hole. The battle of Verdun was 10 months long, with next to no movement or progression; this does not sound like a fun strategy game to me. FPS, maybe. RTS, there's just no substance for it, it wouldn't work.

Not even FPS. I brought this up once, and someone made a very good point: You'd spend 19 3/4 hrs. smoking Lucky Strikes in a trench, and the next 5 min getting mowed down by MGs, blown to hell by Artillery, or gassed to death. WWII has been used way more becuz of this.
#17 Posted by Erik729 (1474 posts) -

[QUOTE="Erik729"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I think WWI would make a better total war game. I really think it would.

IMaBIOHAZARD

I've never played a Total War game, but I don't think WW1 would really work with an RTS, historically speaking, of course. WW1 was such a terrible war because of the stalemates. There was not a lot of strategy involved, because the machine gun lead to trench warfare, causing long battles of attrition. It was the new technology, and lack thereof which made the war what it was: which was a terrible, stalemated, dug-in hell hole. The battle of Verdun was 10 months long, with next to no movement or progression; this does not sound like a fun strategy game to me. FPS, maybe. RTS, there's just no substance for it, it wouldn't work.

Not even FPS. I brought this up once, and someone made a very good point: You'd spend 19 3/4 hrs. smoking Lucky Strikes in a trench, and the next 5 min getting mowed down by MGs, blown to hell by Artillery, or gassed to death. WWII has been used way more becuz of this.

Exactly. I was thinking the only way an fps would work is stealth based; moving across no-man's-land at night with a gas mask on to get to the other side. It would only work as a single level though; you could not design a videogame around this. It would be an awesome level though, moving from impact crater to impact crater, just passing through maybe, not even trying to get to the other side, mgs4 style. But that is the only way! Don't start thinking videogames based on WW1 would work well while maintaining historical accuracy.

#18 Posted by duxter1 (409 posts) -

Sega released a questionaire a few months ago about the future of total war games. It asked you what total war games u would like to see such as medieval asia, rome 2, modern (1900 to now), ancient greece and persia, and the a "empire tw 2" going from 1800 t0 1900. I personally would like to see rome 2, asia, and empire tw 2, but no modern era. Ruse looks like it can fill that role. I dont understand how you can control all the small squads that took part in the airborne landings in normandy on a total war scale. too tactical for a game that big

#19 Posted by FlyingArmbar (1545 posts) -

Own it. Beaten it.

Enfield13

That means you're playing it wrong! :P

RTS's are built for online play. If you asked COH players if they had beaten the single player campaign, I'd wager that the majority would say no, and a lot would say that they have barely touched it.

Though as great as COH is, it's nothing like a TW game.

#20 Posted by bangell99 (10568 posts) -

I pray to the non-existent God that WW2:TW is never made. No further than the Napoleonic Wars, please.

#21 Posted by sammysalsa (1832 posts) -

Hearts of iron 3

#22 Posted by nhatnheo (59 posts) -

OK! But if there is a ww2:tw how do you manage to control the aircrafts,tanks,infanry?? But i think sea battle will be good!

#23 Posted by Enfield13 (988 posts) -

it could be figured out im sure, I just think it would be a good idea.

and I have heard of Order of war and it looks pretty good its a world in conflict but ww2 game.

#24 Posted by noblepuker (24 posts) -

Absolutely not. Total war has gone about as far as it can (excluding expansions for empire). I think they should do a Shogun 2.

Brendissimo35

I agree on a shogun 2,good idea...i just visited www.totalwar.com ,it appears they're way ahead of us. :D

#25 Posted by Mazoch (2418 posts) -

Hearts of iron 3

sammysalsa
This, it sounds like Hearts of Iron would be a perfect fit for what you're looking for.
#26 Posted by KG86 (6021 posts) -

[QUOTE="sammysalsa"]

Hearts of iron 3

Mazoch

This, it sounds like Hearts of Iron would be a perfect fit for what you're looking for.

I would recommend HoI 2 though, 3 is still really buggy.

#27 Posted by NanoMan88 (1220 posts) -

Hearts of iron 3

sammysalsa

Ya HOI3 is the best option, the campaign map is even better than total war games but there is no battle map to speak of.

#28 Posted by Iantheone (8242 posts) -

I think WWI would make a better total war game. I really think it would.

Wasdie
I agree, but most people think otherwise...
#30 Posted by the_mitch28 (4684 posts) -

[QUOTE="sammysalsa"]

Hearts of iron 3

Mazoch

This, it sounds like Hearts of Iron would be a perfect fit for what you're looking for.

Except it's missing half of the reason why people play TW games instead of Europa Universalis and the like.

People say Total War to describe the type of game they want, I don't think they mean specifically that it HAS to be developed by Creative Assembly at the expense of one of their projects like Rome 2 or whatever (because some people take this subject to heart).

I would love to see a game that takes core elements from TW games but changes them to make them work within the WW2 era and battles, this means having the world map where you can manage your country, diplomacy and armies etc and then a battle map where you can command your armies and use your own strategies to overcome undesirable odds.

#31 Posted by keren_man (191 posts) -

Wait for RUSE. Personally I don't think WW1 or WW2 become a part of Total War franchise is bad, maybe they could try it in future because i think we need more superior hardware to play it

#32 Posted by ventnor (1061 posts) -

Total War should never go that far up, even WWI would be too much due to trench warfare.

#33 Posted by AleksandarTale (2906 posts) -

I think people enjoy the TW series because of the scale it has.You control everything from diplomacy to warfare.That's why I liked it anyway.Other people like the battles.The battles are so great because they are unique in a way because you can control unit formations.So IMO TW wouldn't be TW without it.Sure you'l be able to train an assassin to place a bomb at Hitler's meeting (and i would really like to do that) but what about when the battles come? Units didn't go in formations in WW2 like they did in the XVIII century (Empire) or during medieval times.If you want a really good WW2 game you should try Order of War or if you like a game like CoH where you control a few units try Men of War.

#34 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17335 posts) -

Tha main thing I liked about the Total War games are the massive formations which became a necessity due to the limitations of weapons and to maximize the effectiveness of these weapons. By the mid-19th century, new weapons were becoming much more destructive and made the old formations a deathtrap.

I wouldn't go any later than the Zulu Wars of the late 1870's where Lord Chemsford utilized infantry squares to keep the Zulus at bay.

#35 Posted by mrbojangles25 (31998 posts) -

[QUOTE="Enfield13"]

Own it. Beaten it.

FlyingArmbar

That means you're playing it wrong! :P

RTS's are built for online play. If you asked COH players if they had beaten the single player campaign, I'd wager that the majority would say no, and a lot would say that they have barely touched it.

Though as great as COH is, it'snothing like a TW game.

I hate this mentality.

if any genre cries out for epic story and singleplayer experience, it is the RTS genre. That is how it used to be; I wish people would remember that. Multiplayer should a lways be a close second in terms of priority for an RTS game.

#36 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
Order of War. It is pretty much exactly what you want, only more action-y.
#37 Posted by Buttons1990 (3167 posts) -

I think WWI would make a better total war game. I really think it would.

Wasdie

This... Trench warfare, charges, etc... This would work for Total War (although on a smaller scale than the actual war)...

WW2 would not... Battles in WW2 weren't a few thousand men against a few thousands men like in previous wars... It would be an 800,000 strong force against a 1,000,000 strong force on a line that stretched 20 miles in any direction that lasted days, weeks, even months... Not an afternoon.

And it wasn't like previous wars where one line would meet another line and have battle... It was small unit action following precise plans to take objectives... The only country that used masses of troops in a full frontal battle was Russia... And we all see how that turned out (25,000,000 of the 50,000,000 people killed in WW2 were Russian).

#38 Posted by Enfield13 (988 posts) -

World War 1 would obviously be much easier to design, I think it would be a blast.

Imagine how they could capture the dirty and bloody battles.

#39 Posted by MacBoomStick (1822 posts) -

The only good WW:I game is WW:I Medic by Bay12

#40 Posted by theafiguy (962 posts) -

Total War should never go that far up, even WWI would be too much due to trench warfare.

ventnor

I disagree, I think the TW series should cover every section of history that had any major armed conflicts. We've done Rome, we've done the Medieval times, we've Colonial and Napoleonic, we've done Feudal Japan. Covering maybe...Civil War, World War I, World War II, and maybe even Vietnam (although that campaign map would be small, so maybe not) would be a nice breath of fresh air into a series pretty much devoted to older technology and time frames, having something more modern would be nice.

That or China during the Warring States, but I guess you can go play Dynasty Warriors for that.

#41 Posted by theafiguy (962 posts) -

Total War should never go that far up, even WWI would be too much due to trench warfare.

ventnor

I disagree, I think the TW series should cover every section of history that had any major armed conflicts. We've done Rome, we've done the Medieval times, we've Colonial and Napoleonic, we've done Feudal Japan. Covering maybe...Civil War, World War I, World War II, and maybe even Vietnam (although that campaign map would be small, so maybe not) would be a nice breath of fresh air into a series pretty much devoted to older technology and time frames, having something more modern would be nice.

That or China during the Warring States, but I guess you can go play Dynasty Warriors for that.

#42 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
Try Ruse. Total War in general wouldn't work in a WW2 setting.
#43 Posted by klusps (10385 posts) -

WWII just wouldn't work because armies don't go into battles in huge formations like medieval or Roman times. WWI might really work though.

#44 Posted by klusps (10385 posts) -

WWII just wouldn't work because armies don't go into battles in huge formations like medieval or Roman times. WWI might really work though.

#45 Posted by jettpack (3192 posts) -

I would so much rather have a total war game set in world war 1 era

#46 Posted by QQabitmoar (1892 posts) -

Total War games are empire builders. You just can't build an empire....inside a 2-sided war. As others said WW1 era would be much more suited, though battles would be boring. I would rather see Rome 2 first, then perhaps something like Space: Total War. Would totally melt that, and the inevitalbe LOGH mod!

Edit: lol, noone noticed the necro? I guess total war games are THAT awsome :P

#47 Posted by wis3boi (31957 posts) -

World War 1 would obviously be much easier to design, I think it would be a blast.

Imagine how they could capture the dirty and bloody battles.

Enfield13

bumpin 3 year old threads is cool

#48 Posted by theafiguy (962 posts) -
Everyone is simply assuming that things can't change. Do all of you play nations to their historical accuracy? I sure don't. When I play as Sweden I also play around with Denmark for a long time and make them my fwend. Just because history says this happened doesn't necessarily mean that we can't have empire building games set in a WWII universe, especially if they started in 1929 - 1932.
#49 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
Everyone is simply assuming that things can't change. Do all of you play nations to their historical accuracy? I sure don't. When I play as Sweden I also play around with Denmark for a long time and make them my fwend. Just because history says this happened doesn't necessarily mean that we can't have empire building games set in a WWII universe, especially if they started in 1929 - 1932.theafiguy
There's not really 'Empire building' in a traditional sense during that period though; it's an entirely different struggle. However there are the Hearts of Iron games which are conceptually similar to what you're talking about - rewriting history.
#50 Posted by BlackDevil99 (2329 posts) -

I just don't think WW2 would work with total war's current system, the distances are just too great, and once you add in airplanes everything get's really messed up.
WW1 would be bettter, but I still think they should keep to older conflicts. something about adding guns into the games makes me hate them.

Fantasy: Total War (dare I say Lord of the Rings) is what I want to see after they do Rome 2

whatever they do decide to do though, They should realese a scenario or map or whatever that lets you take on the entire earth.

Edit: just saw this thread was from 2009, lol