Civil War Total War Game?

[English...Ew]

Ever since Empire and Napoleon total war I’ve been wanting an American Civil War theme. I would love if CA could stop producing the same game with different textures and minor mechanical changes every year. The only franchise I feel CA is improving are the Warhammer games. I wish they would take a step back into their historical roots and make a civil war game. The updated providence system from Rome II with a rework/update of the gun warfare from Empire would be a great step in the right direction for CA, especially after many for their recent games have been flopping (TOB, Atilla, TK). I want to hear others opinion on this. I just have felt for the past couple years Warhammer has been getting all the love and the historical franchises have been flopping. Could this Civil War concept be a good direction for CA to uplift their historical franchises again?

[TheOrangeBox]

There're few great American Civil War games from Game-Lab including one in current development:
https://www.ug1775.com/

CA is currently bended on other IP so wouldn't expect much for the Total War IP though they're cooking something at the moment.

[anarchy8781]

Ultimate General is still one of the better Civil War games out there.

[Drunk Rambo {The Dirty Dozen}]

Originally posted by Communist Healthcare:

Ever since Empire and Napoleon total war I’ve been wanting an American Civil War theme. I would love if CA could stop producing the same game with different textures and minor mechanical changes every year. The only franchise I feel CA is improving are the Warhammer games. I wish they would take a step back into their historical roots and make a civil war game. The updated providence system from Rome II with a rework/update of the gun warfare from Empire would be a great step in the right direction for CA, especially after many for their recent games have been flopping (TOB, Atilla, TK). I want to hear others opinion on this. I just have felt for the past couple years Warhammer has been getting all the love and the historical franchises have been flopping. Could this Civil War concept be a good direction for CA to uplift their historical franchises again? :KneelingBow:

The US civil war is a good concept but it lacks the open World which is ETW, IMHO. Maybe if the US Civil War was included within a DLC for a new "Victoria" TW, which spans all the World, from her birth in 1819 to her death in 1901. Include most of the World's major emerging nations, including the Zulu Nation and the Sudanese Mahdi's expansionist attempts in the 1890's then it would be fantastic.

There would have to be many DLC's but the epicness of a Victoria Total War would ground breaking.

[Bishop]

I doubt they ever will. Even as a Saga title it's too limited for a TW title. Even a side campaign for a Victorian era game is still too limited. Barely got two factions and two start locations.

Also I don't think Attila or 3K did flop as you say. 3K was their best selling title on release, the issue was they messed up the DLCs and ToB was always going to be a small title with a very limited budget.

[pgeerkens]

Originally posted by Max:

I'd rather see Total War expand on its non-warfare aspects. Less straight-line diplomacy, more interactions with your government, etc.

I know a catchy title for such a game: Diplomacy.

[English...Ew]

Diplomacy is just an excel spreadsheet with a UI covering it up. Pretty basic tbh

[The Cure]

It would be epic as a Saga title. Four starting points, the Army of the Potomac, Army of Northern Virginia, Army of the West and the Army of Tennessee. Section it off into the eastern and western fronts.

The naval combat would be pretty one sided though, but TWs are all about changing history.

Unit diversity would actually be pretty good, both sides had lancer cavalry and native Indian troops, for example. Couple in the Old World's interests and you could theoretically have English and French troops for the South and Russian troops for the North. The Anglos and Francos had a surplus of cotton that the South didn't count on and both would never openly side with a slave confederation at this point in history, but again, changing history is the basis of TW.

Funny enough, the Russians came closest to taking a side in the ACW by sending two fleets of ships, one to the west coast of America and another to the east. Neither fleets saw action of course since it was mostly a show of force and solidarity with the Union. And the Federals, by this point, were already blockading most of the southern ports.

[Bishop]

Originally posted by The Cure:

It would be epic as a Saga title. Four starting points, the Army of the Potomac, Army of Northern Virginia, Army of the West and the Army of Tennessee. Section it off into the eastern and western fronts.

The naval combat would be pretty one sided though, but TWs are all about changing history.

Unit diversity would actually be pretty good, both sides had lancer cavalry and native Indian troops, for example. Couple in the Old World's interests and you could theoretically have English and French troops for the South and Russian troops for the North. The Anglos and Francos had a surplus of cotton that the South didn't count on and both would never openly side with a slave confederation at this point in history, but again, changing history is the basis of TW.

Funny enough, the Russians came closest to taking a side in the ACW by sending two fleets of ships, one to the west coast of America and another to the east. Neither fleets saw action of course since it was mostly a show of force and solidarity with the Union. And the Federals, by this point, were already blockading most of the southern ports.

Russia sent their fleets to keep them out of reach of the British. If they had left them in Russian ports and they joined against Britain/France the Royal Navy would of been able to bottle them up too easily and render the Russian support moot.

And if Britain and France got involved it wouldn't be units, it'd be entire armies and fleets.

[The Cure]

Originally posted by Bishop:

Snip

So what are you saying that I already haven't said before?

The Russian fleets were a sign of force and the English and French would have seriously considered intervention if it wasn't for the American South's proclivity for slavery. The two Russian fleets were in two different areas of operation. The Anglo/Franco combined navies couldn't have blockaded both Kalevala and Kronstadt simultaneously, unless it was a conjoined naval effort and then it would have been a global war.

The Russians sent out tangible feelers into the American conflict long before the English sent out Coldstream Guard officers or the French authorities into the ACW field.

And I never mentioned units, other than actual unit diversity. If the ACW became a global conflict it would have been foreign navies, armies and reinforcing battalions sent in. I'm not sure anybody would argue that.

[Bishop]

Originally posted by The Cure:

So what are you saying that I already haven't said before?

The Russian fleets were a sign of force and the English and French would have seriously considered intervention if it wasn't for the American South's proclivity for slavery. The two Russian fleets were in two different areas of operation. The Anglo/Franco combined navies couldn't have blockaded both Kalevala and Kronstadt simultaneously, unless it was a conjoined naval effort and then it would have been a global war.

The Russians sent out tangible feelers into the American conflict long before the English sent out Coldstream Guard officers of French authorities into the ACW field.

And I never mentioned units. If the ACW became a global conflict it would have been armies and battalions sent in.

Pointing out it wasn't any more them joining than the shows from others, was the only way they could play any power in it. The fleet wasn't much of a threat to Britain or France and was more keeping it away from them in case of conflict while also helping the Union.

It really didn't have much impact. France was already invested in Mexico, they would like to see the USA split apart but wouldn't do anything without Britain and Britain didn't want to back any slave states but also not overly popular for another war of intervention. The Crimean war hadn't long ended, which also reduces the weight that Russias support had. It was more just reinforcing that it wasn't worth getting directly involved.

If Britain, France and Russia joined the ACW on opposite sides it would be a global war anyway for them. Neither of these fleets were made up of overly impressive ships and at this point the Royal Navy had the fleets to bottle them up (plus the European Russian ships risk being locked in ice part of the year).

You did say troops:

Originally posted by The Cure:

Unit diversity would actually be pretty good, both sides had lancer cavalry and native Indian troops, for example. Couple in the Old World's interests and you could theoretically have English and French troops for the South and Russian troops for the North. The Anglos and Francos had a surplus of cotton that the South didn't count on and both would never openly side with a slave confederation at this point in history, but again, changing history is the basis of TW.

Did you mean armies instead then? As that doesn't read as it and they would surely be their own factions especially if splitting up the North and South in to two factions.

It would be the French and British navies wiping away the blockade of the South, Blockading the North while British armies swept down from Canada and French and Southern armies swept up from the South. It'd be GG for the Union while Russia manages to maybe land half a stack in San Francisco. Which I don't think is a good thing for the game.

[The Cure]

Originally posted by Bishop:

snip

It would obviously depend on how the mechanics of this hypothetical TW played out. Are foreign units used like mercs (recruited from a limited provincial pool), or are they their own forces that intervene and cause havoc among your own campaign, with story/historical based choices to recruit them? And that's only addressing your latter comment. The last part of your comment was more interesting, so I addressed it first.

Your first bit really affirms what I've said. The Old World wanted to posture without formally backing any claim in the ACW. The English/French couldn't start an all out Crimean War 2.0 and the Russians wanted to flex their muscles while avoiding said global conflict.

But in terms of an ACW game, all bets are off, are they not? In TW you can have Ptolemy reconquer the east, have Fredrick II create a global dominion that rivals Farmer George III. Have Honga defeat Oda and the Toyotomi and then prance to the Shogunate.

[Bishop]

Originally posted by The Cure:

It would obviously depend on how the mechanics of this hypothetical TW played out. Are foreign units used like mercs (recruited from a limited provincial pool), or are they their own forces that intervene and cause havoc among your own campaign, with story/historical based choices to recruit them. And that's only addressing your latter comment. The former part of your comment was more interesting, so I addressed it first.

Your first bit really affirms what I've said. The Old World wanted to posture without formally backing any claim in the ACW. The English/French couldn't start an all out Crimean War 2.0 and the Russians wanted to flex their muscles while avoiding said global war.

But in terms of an ACW game, all bets are off, are they not? In TW you can have Ptolemy reconquer the east, have Fredrick II create a global dominion that rivals Farmer George III. Have Honga defeat Oda and the Toyotomi.

Fair enough wasn't sure with the original comment (wasn't being snarky with my response btw).

But that's my point, they wouldn't really join. Closest Britain did get to possibly joining or just causing problems was in 1861 after the Trent Affair where the Union captured a British ship with Confederate envoys on it. They sent troops and ships to Canada.

The series tends to be sandbox but also keeps it within the realms of the sphere of the game. Such as it was the Huns invading in Attila rather than Indians. We didn't have the Japanese invading during 3K. The sandbox comes from what the factions involved do. So the South could win or it could even end in a draw.

I'd also argue it doesn't really bring much in the way of unit diversity, especially if you don't get a full faction roster for France/Britain/Russia. It becomes line infantry with rifles, maybe muskets for Russia which is just a downgrade. There was some ships that were bought from Britain and crewed by European volunteers for the South so that would be different as commerce raiders - but that probably needs a different mechanic.

IF they did do an ACW game think these would be better handled as possible events with multiple choices to respond and mechanics to go with that. Could have a new naval battle with blockade runners for the South. Get a section of ships out and run to a node representing a European powers port in the Carib or Bermuda and get cash and/or favours. Spend that to try and import something on the return trip, could be industrial elements or could be purchased weapons.

[The Cure]

Originally posted by Bishop:

Snip

No, I didn't find your replies as snarky, perhaps impassioned on a topic you find interesting. An ACW Saga title is an intriguing hypothetical after all.

As for unit diversity I was mostly speaking to the rare Native irregulars and things like melee cavalry which you didn't have a lot of in the conflict. Also units like the mountain howitzer (somewhere between a cannon and an ETW howitzer, with the movement range of horse artillery).

The foreign power's intervention units would basically work like the foreign FotS units, if you even included them at all. Basically high morale/reload/melee units. Perhaps have them come with advanced platoon firing doctrine from recruitment at the port. Which in game play terms only comes down to a higher reload rate from what I've observed. In Empire there's platoon firing and then with some factions you get "advanced platoon firing" for some units, with the aforementioned increase in reload rate.

[jonrobert7]

Consider Grand Tactician Civil War. My favorite TW are Empire, Napoleon, and Shogun II FOTS, so I really like GTCW.

GTCW does not have the eye candy in the tactical battles like the TW series, but it has some very interesting differences.

The are no arbitrary unit or army limits, nor building limits, nor even limits on where you can build. Rather your limits are based on your style, strategy and where and what you want to spend.

There is not a time limit on the tactical battles.

The economy is more "real" in that it is not as simple as get "x" amount of money to spend in a turn.

The supply system not only requires that your armies are supplied, but they need provisions, forage for horses,, small arms ammo, artillery ammo, etc. Morale, cohesion, readiness all impact an army.

There are many different kinds of muskets, rifles, carbines, artillery and ships to invest in.

It has an optional "order delay" feature which can be frustrating for a TW player - a rider is dispatched from your army, corps, or division commander to the unit, so units do not instantly obey your commands. This feature makes the tactical battles less of a "click-fest" and requires a bit more patience and planning.

Research in GTCW is linked to the economy. You can maximize you military subsidy to allow you to get to complete the ironclad project sooner, or diplomatic subsidies to allow you to get to some of the import weapon projects sooner.

GTCW allows you to hand off parts of your campaign to allow it to control. You can have the AI control your weapons production, your policies, your projects, and/or your monetary subsidies.

I have found GTCW to be buggier than the TW series, pathing can be a headache, and GTCW has less polish. These would be my main complaints of the game compared to the TW series.

But the scale and immersion of GTCW has made it one of my most favorite ever.

[seany1977]

Originally posted by Diego & Taylor Forever ❤:

Ever since Empire and Napoleon total war I’ve been wanting an American Civil War theme. I would love if CA could stop producing the same game with different textures and minor mechanical changes every year. The only franchise I feel CA is improving are the Warhammer games. I wish they would take a step back into their historical roots and make a civil war game. The updated providence system from Rome II with a rework/update of the gun warfare from Empire would be a great step in the right direction for CA, especially after many for their recent games have been flopping (TOB, Atilla, TK). I want to hear others opinion on this. I just have felt for the past couple years Warhammer has been getting all the love and the historical franchises have been flopping. Could this Civil War concept be a good direction for CA to uplift their historical franchises again? :KneelingBow:

I would also like to see a TW American Civil War game but as pointed out it's too limited in scope for TW. If you want a pure Civil War game with a good campaign, diplomacy, economics, logistics etc and TW style tactical battles I would recommend Grand Tactician: Civil War