Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
0 
Denunciar esta mensagem
Yep, over at Total War Centre
Seriously. Go check it out. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?1608-The-Great-War-%28TGW%29
@Gazbuscus
On the whole, I just want to say Kudos, because your feedback is very well put out and much needed. I agree with almost everything you have said. However, I do think that there are some points worth raising.
This I do not believe for a second especially in comparison to a lot of the wars that historically took place in vanilla Empire (or even Medieval)'s time frame(s), and even those I'd be wary about labeling with that. But to say the least, the reasons for why any given person or force was fighting in WWI could be easily simplified even if it had little to nothing to do with the "reason" of the assassination in Sarajevo (which was something even the Habsburg Emperor did not really care that much about).
But you can actually crib from the primary sources and see how (or what) these people understood they were fighting for, especially since in the Western fronts it very quickly took on the ideological tinge of a struggle between A: democracy and absolutism
and B: Nation A versus Nation B for Proper National Glory and Security.
I'm not saying that I couldn't do the same for-say- the Hundred Years' War, War of the League of Cambrai, or the War of Austrian Succession. But I'd be damn hard pressed to do it. The more complicated Medieval, Renaissance, and Black Powder wars are pretty much vastly harder to believe anybody in the ranks understood than WWI; after all. Just try to teach an illiterate private in-say- a Line unit about why Austria and Prussia were at war in the War of Austrian Sucession, both for the stated reasons (Pragmatic Sanction anybody?) and for the actual (Silesia? Wot Is Dat). Whereas WWI you can at least strip out a lot of the filler.
The Central Powers, with Tsarist Russia, the Black Hand, and the Bolsheviks getting honorable mention.
To put a really blunt point on it, if you know all the facts it Especially is the case. To avoid getting into a major historical dissertion, the Bismarkean Empire was always racist, reactionary, expansionist, aggresive, authoritarian, and brutal beyond any logical reason. In the lead up to and during WWI it graduated to being quasi-totalitarian, genocidal (just ask the Herero), and seeking what I can only call world domination. A lot to most of its' allies were the same, as especially shown by the Ottoman Turks that had been waging the first truly "mdoern" genocide against the non-Turkish, Non-Muslim peoples of the Ottoman Empire.
When you make Tsarist Russia look somewhat sane in comparison, you have problems, and there's a reason why the clear cut bad guys of WWII (Hitler and co) largely got their education under the Second Reich.
Much of this was due to the Kaiser, who was a bellicose and unstable guy who wasn't even respected by much of Germany. But, he was the Kaiser, and Germany at the time was built to follow its leader. Under his leadership, Germany was spoiling for a fight.
Even that might be being too generous, and it probably downplays the role of A: Austria-Hungary, B: The German General Staff (who basically took over the country and Germany's Empire and allies during the war), C: the Yugoslavist radicals (as based out of Serbia and Montinegro), and D: Tsarist Russia.
II'd argue that it was probably "significantly" worse than its' competitor nations in the West, who were still somewhat expansionist but had tapered off, and were nowhere near as inhumane. And to be honest, that reading of German motivations and fealty to the Kaiser is probably even a bit generous. The truth is that when the chance showed itself, Falkenhayn, Ludendorff, and Hindenburg were quite happy shunting him to the side and ruling as an illegal (even by Bismarckean Absolutist standards) military dictatorship. Though the fact that he was ok with that doesn't speak well of him.
Most WW1 era based games are pure in depth strategy or just touch up on that time period like rise of nations, empire earth games, or civ games did. Would nice to have a Total war type game 19th-early 20th century based.
Ehhhh... Define "Major", and even that doesn't particularly work. The gap between Waterloo and WWI might have not had any earth shattering world-or-continent-wide-wars, but it had pleeeeennty of major conflicts. To just start listing stuff off from memory...
* The Neapolitan War that saw Austria and Britain invade Naples to depose one of Napoleon's Marshals who supported the wrong side when Napoleon returned from Elba.
* The Greek War of Independence
* The Latin American Wars of Independence (which contain maybe half a dozen separate but intermingling conflicts of their own, half or over half I'd call "Major").
* The First Carlist War
* Brazil's conquest of what is now Uruguay.
* The Revolutions of 1848 (Which again, cover something like three or four major wars in and of their own right. Check out the Revolutions Startpos mod for Napoleon, and look at the freeware game 1848 if you can still play).
* Argentina's spectacular self-destruction after independence, which resulted in a long, long serie sof Civil Wars between Federals and Unitarians.
* Mexico's spectacular self-destruction from the 1820's to the 1850's,, of which The Alamo is all anybody remembers.
* The Uruguayan War of Independence between Argentina and pro-Argentine Uruguayans versus Brazil.
* France's conquest of North Africa (again conflating).
* The First Opium War
* The Wonderful Egyptian-Turkish-Local clustereffs over "Who gets to rule the Levant?"
* The Mexican-American War stemming from the point second above.
* The Crimean War
* First Anglo-Afghan War
* Second Opium War
* The Indian Mutiny (Of which there is a very pleasant mod for Empire).
* The Second Italian War of Independence.
* The American Civil War. (Another Great mod for Empire)
* French intervention in Mexico on top of a Civil War, taking advantage of the above.
* The War of the Triple Alliance against Paraguay.
* 10 Year "Long War" of Cuban Independence, which fails.
* War of the Pacific between Chile versus Bolivia and Peru.
* The Sardinian Conquest of Naples
* The Austro-Prussian War stretching as far afield as Italy.
* The Franco-Prussian War.
* Russo-Turkish War of 1877 (which basically brought in all of the Balkans and Caucasus but Greece).
* French conquest of Madagascar.
* The Anglo-Burmese Wars
* Boer-Zulu Wars.
* Anglo-Zulu War.
* Madhist Wars. (Ditto about the Indian Mutiny and American Civil War, but for Napoleon).
* The First Sino-Japanese War
* The successful Cuban Revolution that started in 1895.
* The Philippine Revolutionary Conflicts (against Spain, against the US, against each other, etc).
* Spanish-American War
* Boxer Rebellion.
* Russo-Japanese War
* Italo-Turkish War.
* Balkan Wars.
A lot of those include "Triple AAA conflicts" like the Crimean, Triple Alliance, Franco/Sardinian-Austrian war in 1859, Austro-Prussian, Franco-Prussian, Opium, Meijii Foreign Wars, Russo-Turkish War of 1878, and Balkan Wars. All of which are at least around the American Civil War's weight catagory. So this was not an idle time at all.
*Edit: *And I even *FORGOT* some of them, including some really amazing ommissions.
I forgot to mention things like:
A: The actual, successful Cuban Revolution.
B: The Philippine Revolution.
C: The Spanish_American War
D: The Sino-Japanese War
E: The Russo-Japanese War.
F: The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878
In particular, D, E, and F are Amaaazinnglly unjustiable, since they were amaaazingly massive and influential.
And even this revised list is by no means a full list of the Major conflicts in the interbellum. It's just of the ones I remember.
But keep in mind: there are so many major wars in this time period that I actually *forgot* some of them.
On your list, I would rate the American Civil War and the Russo-Japanese War as "major." By which I mean wars involving huge stakes with global implications and involving factions that you would actually control in game. These seem like prime candidates for a focused expansion, rather than a century spanning full TW game.
If we're talking 1830-1910, the vast majority of controllable factions will be European. I'm not even sure the US would make that list for the time period. You are talking Britain, France, Spain, Ottomans, Prussia, Austria Hungary, and Russia. Add to that probably Japan. There just were not globe/continent spanning conflicts that involved these powers the way they did in the 18th and 20th Century.
The 19th Century was a time for colonial consolidation and peace among the great powers, rather than direct armed conflict on a global scale. I'm not saying it couldn't work, but I have a hard time seeing how it would be that different from Empire and Napoleon, other than there weren't as many significant conflicts during the period.
Understandable, and fair enough.
Understandable, but I think this is also a strawman. The Boxers would not factor in since they would be at most a type of rebel or maybe an emergent faction, but the Chinese? I'd be hard pressed to imagine a situation where they wouldn't be playable, especially given the parallels they have to the Maratha.
Greece I certainly can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be avalible, especially since it was probably of comparable status to the Netherlands or Medieval's Venice at least, though. Mexico has a somewhat weaker case IMHO, but I can already see a campaign start that challenges you to crush the Republics of Texas, Yucatan, etc. and go on to fight the US and Europe for control of the Carib and Western America.
But that goes back to my ultimate point: at no point do I expect all of these factions or wars to make appearences at all, much less as playable factions. But even leeching those out, there are more than enough that you could build a game around if you wanted ot.
If that's the criteria you're using, then you Definitely need to do more research and homework, because your "ratings" are off. I agree the American Civil War and Russo-Japanese war count amongst the Major lists for the reasons you cited, but there are others that were even more influential and powerful than those, involving powers that would by any sane stretch be playable.
At minimum, that would be the Crimean War, the Opium Wars, the Wars of Italian Unification (especially 1859 and the ones involving Austria), the Austro-Prussian War, some of the revolutions of 1848 (particularly as the embattled governments themselves or a faction that wants to intervene, like Britain), the Sino-Japanese War, the Balkan Wars, and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78.
The only ones I can think of that can be argued to *not* dwarf the American Civil War in terms fo the criteria you list (at least in the immediate scale) are the Crimean War and Wars of Italian Unificaiton, and if I wanted to be a contrarian I'm sure I could argue those as well. Those are Major wars by any sane definition of the term, and I'd say that including the American Civil War alone (along with the massive pyrotechnics display of the Russo-Japanese War) strikes me personally as Amerocentric tunnel vision (as an American myself who is a massive nerd, gamer, and Unionist debator).
Don't get me wrong: it definitely earns its' place amongst the AAA list Major conflicts. But you'd be hard pressed to justify placing it on there alone while excluding those others.
I'm not sure I agree, but I'd certainly be interested to hear any ideas about it. But ya, we already have Victoria 2 for that (warts and all). And a few of those conflicts (like the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian Wars, and what have you) certianly strike me as possibly fitting for that treatment.
Agreed, though I am sure that it could be balanced out and still "work" that way, much like how Medieval II, Empire, and even Rome did.
First and foremost put your mind at ease: the US would absolutely have to be included. There is no reason why it wouldn't be if Spain (which by then was basically like the Mughals in Empire) was on the way out.
Secondly, I think there would have to be at least a few additions to that list to round it off (even beyond the ambiguous case of the Ottomans). Japan is the obvious example, but I think it's a very good one. However, to that I'd also add:
Piedmont-Sardinia and another Italian faction like the Two Silicies or the Papacy (Fight the Habsburgs, Reunite Italy and return it to its' rightful Roman place on the world stage!).
On non-Euro/Western notes: Qing China (as the dominant hegimon of the Asian mainland struggling to reform ala the Mughals, but How?).
The Egyptian Khedieve (A strong, reformist government under Muhummad Ali, capable of competing with the Sultan in Constantinople. Fight for Syria! Dig the Suez Canal through Events and Research! Expand across Africa into the Sudan and Ethiopia! But beware slave revolts, Western intervention, and your supposed master!).
At least one Latin American faction like Mexico, Brazil, and/or Argentina, to represent the amazing power these factions wielded at their heydays and to give the delectable "What If?" scenarios.
And depending on the start date, maybe one (unlockable?) Indian faction like the Mughal Empire trying to either fight off the British yoke or bide its' time for the right oppertunity to do so.
It's not the modern UN, but I figure that would give us a fairly cosmopolitan group to work with and keep things fresh and varied enough for the purposes of any such game.
Sorry, but I'd disagree on both counts from just looking at a map.
It certainly had less of the farflung major multipower cluster effs that the earlier Black Powder and later World Wars superficially had in common. But in a lot of ways, I'd also argue that is misleading. Because to be really blunt, most of the 18th century wars really weren't significant in any of your criteria. And defining "significant conflicts" by "how much land did the combatants of this war claim on a map/what proportion of the world's flags were involved here?" is fatally flawed.
If you ask me to rank between the War of Jenkins' Ear or Austrian Succession on one hand and the Crimean War, Franco-Prussian War, or American Civil War on which gets higher marks for being a "globe/continent spanning conflict involving these powers", I'm going to pull for the ones that featured the US Navy hunting for Confederate ships near Japan and saw Russia make plans to invade India.
And what the interbellum lacks in pitched multipower spectaculars, they make up (from a Total War gameplay experience) in sustained, sizable wars one after the other, often involving one major power pitted against others. Which to be honest is more true to life for how a game on the Total War engine usually plays out up to/before things like Realm Divide factored in.
As for how the 'Massive spanning" view of the Black Powder Musket wars is misleading....
First and foremost, mutlipower, continent/global spanning conflicts (by any definition) were somewhat rare even in this era. Spectaculars like the War of Spanish Succession, War of Austrian Succession, American Revolution, etc were the exception in this era, not the norm.
Secondly, a big reason why even those look so expansive and far flung by our standards is because of skewed perceptions. We largely look at 18th century warfare- when we look at it at all- first through the eyes of with a Western maritime POV. We in the Anglosphere basically get most of our knowledge and sources from the British, French, and Dutch, with a fair bit of bleed over and exchange of ideas with Spanish and Portuguese sources. All of these "primay sources for sources" were big maritime empires involved in the colony game to one degree or another, and that skews our perception.
The second is that when we look at this era at all, we're usually looking at it for the American and French revolutions(* including the Napoleonic Wars), or at least form the vantage point/understanding of those. The problem is that these two conflicts are incredibly misleading for trying to understand 18th century warfare, or at best "gateway" subjects to learning about it. Not the least of which because they're some things we can understand in comparsion to their bretheren, and one way they're different is that you can actually replicate them in a Total War game.
We can comprehend them ideologically and philisophically, they deal with sources and cultures that make sense to us and are deeply relevant to our modern world. And even on a strategic sense they jive a lot better with the way we understand war and strategy, especially
when it comes to how we think of fronts, military objectives, and global warfare ala the World Wars or Cold War.
That's largely because they basically established the trends for those (the only really global conflict of any kind before the "greater 18th century"- including the Sun King- were the big Anti-Imperial/Habsburg wars like the Thirty Years' War, Eighty Years' War, Armada and what have you). They helped establish the world we live in now, and how we game. They make sense to us.
But they're so terribly misleading, because most of the time it wasn't like that, and if we go by those two exceptions alone we might take a look at a conveniently colored map of the world indicating the major combatants, and think it's like the world wars or Cold War. That it actually is total war But most of the time it wasn't.
If you ignore the map colorations and look at the actual movement of the troops on the ground and fleets at sea in- say- the War of Austrian Succession, you'll usually see "Anglo-Dutch/French or Austro/Prussian armies march back and forth in Belgium, Holland. and Hanover/Central Europe," with the addendum of "and have a bunch of sieges" for the former. For war in the colonies you basically had massive harassment raids to kill people and steal goods, with maybe a small dedicated invasion with the intent of holding an enemy colony for ransom.
The that we remember from this era (Turrene, Charles XII, Eugene of Savoy, Churchill, Wolfe, Frederick the Great, etc) were amazing *Because* they were ahead of their time in breaking that mold.
The French-Indian War was decisive *precisely because* it was only then that the British Government did something basic for any Total War Player. To mount a dedicated, sustained war effort with the intent of conquering France's colonies, and to not accept peace, not settle for less, and to try and try again until they had thrown the French out of the big colonial leagues. What an Empire player does before the tutorial is over was something the British government didn't dedicate itself to for over a century.
If you want a better idea about what the average Black Powder war of this era was like, look The "Potato War", the Austro-Russian war with Turkey in 1787, and some of the "normal" Anglo-Bourbon Wars like Jenkins' Ear or King George's War.
There was genius. There was colonial war across the world. But the bottom line is that in your average 18th century war, the results were usually underwhelming at the end of it, even with clear victory.
And if you told me that these things were "more significant' than the Crimean War or Italian Unification, I'd probably lookat you like you were insane. The fact that everybody (rightfully) gives lip service to Frederick the Great as the great military genius of his age is illuminating. Especially given his track record.
Firstly, as I said before: I dispute the idea that there "weren't as many significant conflicts", as I mentioned before.
But secondly, I do think it wouldn't be tooo different from Empire and to a lesser extent Napoleon. But frankly, I'd chalk that up to the fact that Empire is not really that good a simulator of 18th century war and politics, and that a lot of the mechanics make sense. Mash them together with the "exploration of the New World" schtick at the end of Medieval II, and I think that'd be the base you'd start off from.