WWII total war game possible?

[johnnycash6969]

I would love to see one based on WWII, also have a world map, 5 years down the road possibly, but they gotta make one soon

[Sarkin]

Nitrotrinadium a écrit :

Jian a écrit :

the mechanics of a flying griffon , and the mechanics of a plane in a video game are the same.

the only difference is the skin, an the movement speed of the unit. and the way its attack is animated . Other wise they are the exact same thing. as far as the coding is concerned.

--

The Political circumstances of every era are historically important. but in a game they aren't required. Do you think CoD addresses the political matters of WW2? No it doesn't its a shooter. it takes place in WW2. an has nothing to do with the complex geo-political atmosphere.

Okay its not a strategy game lets use a strategy game shall we?

Company of Heroes strategy game, takes place in WW2. does that encompass the major geopolitical atmosphere of WW2? No? Gee..

How about Axis an Allies? tis an older game ...Nope it has fixed alliances. an you work with the other nations in your alliance to fight the other side till one is left standing.

No?

Gee....its almost like so long as there is fighting between armies. some basic economic resources.

how about Hearts of Iron? which is a successful series...well it lacks complex battles. it does allow you to negotiate with people not in the war. it allows you to try an get non-critical nations to join in....but no overly complex geo-political sphere.

hm........

Whelp! i guess so long as the game has basic diplomacy, basic resource management, the ability to build an move armies that it'll work an satisfy most gamers... what does that sound like? hm....

could it be like most total war games to date? certainly sounds like it.

Uhh CoH stays true to the history of events....so yeah, it just doesn't get in depth with any geo-politics because you aren't the overall commander, or in the case of a TW game, the President or Fuhrer. You are comparing apples to oranges, hypocrite. XD

Hearts of Iron 4 actually includes many geo-political choices and repercussions depending on the choices you make. HoI 3 was the same. Did you even play them? BAHAHAHA

You are so far off on your assessment of the similarities and differences between the griffons and planes. You must just be ignorant of physics.

Axis and Allies? Never played it, but it sounds pretty politically accurate from what you said, so why did you even use it as an example?

WW2 TW will neverrrrrrr happen, period, then end, get over it cupcake.

I need to sleep, maybe you will let go of your delusions by the time I wake up and finish Thanksgiving dinner and all that jazz. I doubt it though, you kids these days are a lost cause.

Physics don't apply in games when it comes to the difference between a gryphon , and a Plane.

They just move without any restriction on the terrain.


--

Again you show you inability to comprehend whats said.

The games listed wer all successes. They all lack extreme depth it would take to represent WW2. - Hoi was mentioned because it doesn't go indepth with its battles. Please take the time to process whats said.

however they are still able to show that a WW2 Total War can be done an can succeede because it doesn't "Need" to be a complex geo-political game that puts all dedicated Geo-political games to shame.

It just needs to have

basic diplomacy. it just needs to have do-able combat. and it just needs basic resource management.

All things exactly like previous Total War games.


--

flight in a game.

is the same for all units. it doesn't use 'physics' like the real world. the only difference between the Gyphon, an the Plane in the game engine is

its appearance, its animation, an the speed at which the graphic moves across the screen.

[Karl]

I don't think many TW fans would actually buy a ww2 game, I mean it's just completely different, I came to TW games for Ancient to Napoleonic warfare.

[Kamerad JoStorm]

I don't think a WW2 game would fit for a total war game. Well I just have some suggestions if you want a real WW2 game, Men of War Assualt Squad 2, Company of Heroes, Blitzkrieg just to name a few.

[Crowkeeper]

Alexander Sarayev a écrit :

I don't think many TW fans would actually buy a ww2 game, I mean it's just completely different, I came to TW games for Ancient to Napoleonic warfare.

TheShogun a écrit :

I don't think a WW2 game would fit for a total war game. Well I just have some suggestions if you want a real WW2 game, Men of War Assualt Squad 2, Company of Heroes, Blitzkrieg just to name a few.

I agree on all points.

[KernelPopcorn]

People didn't stand in a big line and trade shots in WW2.
Therefore it doesn't have the potential of being a good Total War game.

[Sarkin]

KernelPopcorn a écrit :

People didn't stand in a big line and trade shots in WW2.
Therefore it doesn't have the potential of being a good Total War game.

Tell that to the Men of War series . theres a lot of times where both sides get pinned down trying to out flank the other, with neither giving ground. as supplies dwindle. making every street you take worth it. only to discover the bastard on the other side had some tanks in reserve that just mowed down your advancing recon team. >.>

or your tank that your moving up feeling invincible cause the enemies only got infantry only to discover the guy with a bazooka in the window , or the AT gun down the road just blew your tank to pieces.

WW2 when done right is just as tense and tactical as any strategy game. in this instance it would be squads tactically moving around the maps trying not to get wiped out fighting house to house. WW2 is a very complex thing to get right. and would be worth the effort to get right. Moving your army up to take a city , no walls just the hell fire of machine guns tanks an half trucks to fight your way through then the trying to force people out of buildings. opting weather or not to just level the city with artillery.

it would make for an awesome TW game.

Really steam? we're censoring the word "Bast" "ard" now? ....sigh.....

[Crowkeeper]

Jian a écrit :

KernelPopcorn a écrit :

People didn't stand in a big line and trade shots in WW2.
Therefore it doesn't have the potential of being a good Total War game.

Tell that to the Men of War series . theres a lot of times where both sides get pinned down trying to out flank the other, with neither giving ground. as supplies dwindle. making every street you take worth it. only to discover the bastard on the other side had some tanks in reserve that just mowed down your advancing recon team. >.>

or your tank that your moving up feeling invincible cause the enemies only got infantry only to discover the guy with a bazooka in the window , or the AT gun down the road just blew your tank to pieces.

WW2 when done right is just as tense and tactical as any strategy game. in this instance it would be squads tactically moving around the maps trying not to get wiped out fighting house to house. WW2 is a very complex thing to get right. and would be worth the effort to get right. Moving your army up to take a city , no walls just the hell fire of machine guns tanks an half trucks to fight your way through then the trying to force people out of buildings. opting weather or not to just level the city with artillery.

it would make for an awesome TW game.

Really steam? we're censoring the word "Bast" "ard" now? ....sigh.....

Nope, it will never work and for that reason it will never happen. =D

[Sarkin]

Alexander Sarayev a écrit :

I don't think many TW fans would actually buy a ww2 game, I mean it's just completely different, I came to TW games for Ancient to Napoleonic warfare.

if we keep it strictly to how things function outside of more cover based warfare

a lot of things would mechnically remain the same.

armoured vehicles would basically just be reskinned cavalry. just a higher damage rate, and of course depending on the vehicle represented a more rapid fire, or higher overall damage from long range.

of course theres still the ability to smash through lines but generally sending anything in WW2 to purely smash through a line could go badly since tanks were far from undamageable.

even the first tanks were bogged down with issues.

but mechanic wise a lot of it would be similar to Empire total war. units using houses an walls/trees for cover.

Cavalry capable of firing on the move. which is essentially what most of the armoured vehicles would be.

APCs could be defined as the modern Dragoons. quickly moving infantry battallions across the field to more tactical positions.

i think the only thing overly different would just be air units if they opt to go with them. Again this is strictly in terms of mechanics obviously you'd have to come up with a lot of new strategies . an the theme would of course look different.

i guess its mostly in most terms just a difference between


Melee combat, and Ranged combat. Melee combat without a doubt is somewhat better theres more flexibility, and somewhat less punishment for mistakes. watching 2 swordsmen fight it out (when animated well) is definitely better than watching two soldiers trying to shoot each other.

but i think it would be good for CA to expand the title into different Eras because staying in Eras where melee combat is dominant..while not bad. would get stale. since a lot of the animations will end up being the same , an slapping another theme on to it.

while i am more pro melee combat due to the fact that earlier eras don't have things that can completely exterminate a unit. but from a challenge and strategy perspective fighting such things is fun to me atleast.

but as i've said as a personal preference , ignoring the conversation topic.

I'd prefer something where i could build cities with custom maps. so that the strategies an tactics are always shifting theres no fixed best path.

but since the topic is "is it possible" an the answer is "Yes" so long as CA exists an so long as TW is a game franchise its a possibility that they will eventually attempt a WW2 game.

because even if the current people working there don't wish to , inevitably there will be a changing of the guard an those individuals might decide to make one. However i still think that Warhammer seems like a chance to experiment with flying units while not diverging to much from their current formula. and i can't thnk of a reason to want to experiment with flying units unless they were planning to do something new after they finish with the Warhammer games.

[Crowkeeper]

Jian a écrit :

Alexander Sarayev a écrit :

I don't think many TW fans would actually buy a ww2 game, I mean it's just completely different, I came to TW games for Ancient to Napoleonic warfare.

if we keep it strictly to how things function outside of more cover based warfare

a lot of things would mechnically remain the same.

armoured vehicles would basically just be reskinned cavalry. just a higher damage rate, and of course depending on the vehicle represented a more rapid fire, or higher overall damage from long range.

of course theres still the ability to smash through lines but generally sending anything in WW2 to purely smash through a line could go badly since tanks were far from undamageable.

even the first tanks were bogged down with issues.

but mechanic wise a lot of it would be similar to Empire total war. units using houses an walls/trees for cover.

Cavalry capable of firing on the move. which is essentially what most of the armoured vehicles would be.

APCs could be defined as the modern Dragoons. quickly moving infantry battallions across the field to more tactical positions.

i think the only thing overly different would just be air units if they opt to go with them. Again this is strictly in terms of mechanics obviously you'd have to come up with a lot of new strategies . an the theme would of course look different.

i guess its mostly in most terms just a difference between


Melee combat, and Ranged combat. Melee combat without a doubt is somewhat better theres more flexibility, and somewhat less punishment for mistakes. watching 2 swordsmen fight it out (when animated well) is definitely better than watching two soldiers trying to shoot each other.

but i think it would be good for CA to expand the title into different Eras because staying in Eras where melee combat is dominant..while not bad. would get stale. since a lot of the animations will end up being the same , an slapping another theme on to it.

while i am more pro melee combat due to the fact that earlier eras don't have things that can completely exterminate a unit. but from a challenge and strategy perspective fighting such things is fun to me atleast.

but as i've said as a personal preference , ignoring the conversation topic.

I'd prefer something where i could build cities with custom maps. so that the strategies an tactics are always shifting theres no fixed best path.

but since the topic is "is it possible" an the answer is "Yes" so long as CA exists an so long as TW is a game franchise its a possibility that they will eventually attempt a WW2 game.

because even if the current people working there don't wish to , inevitably there will be a changing of the guard an those individuals might decide to make one. However i still think that Warhammer seems like a chance to experiment with flying units while not diverging to much from their current formula. and i can't thnk of a reason to want to experiment with flying units unless they were planning to do something new after they finish with the Warhammer games.

Your ideas are laughable.

"armoured vehicles would basically just be reskinned cavalry" - This is asinine.

It will never happen.

[Karl]

Well what about the map? I mean if we look at HOI3 we'll see that th entire frontline was covered, it was no longer just being able to freely march armies from place to place, entire borders were blocked off by divisions.

[Sarkin]

Nitrotrinadium a écrit :

Jian a écrit :

if we keep it strictly to how things function outside of more cover based warfare

a lot of things would mechnically remain the same.

armoured vehicles would basically just be reskinned cavalry. just a higher damage rate, and of course depending on the vehicle represented a more rapid fire, or higher overall damage from long range.

of course theres still the ability to smash through lines but generally sending anything in WW2 to purely smash through a line could go badly since tanks were far from undamageable.

even the first tanks were bogged down with issues.

but mechanic wise a lot of it would be similar to Empire total war. units using houses an walls/trees for cover.

Cavalry capable of firing on the move. which is essentially what most of the armoured vehicles would be.

APCs could be defined as the modern Dragoons. quickly moving infantry battallions across the field to more tactical positions.

i think the only thing overly different would just be air units if they opt to go with them. Again this is strictly in terms of mechanics obviously you'd have to come up with a lot of new strategies . an the theme would of course look different.

i guess its mostly in most terms just a difference between


Melee combat, and Ranged combat. Melee combat without a doubt is somewhat better theres more flexibility, and somewhat less punishment for mistakes. watching 2 swordsmen fight it out (when animated well) is definitely better than watching two soldiers trying to shoot each other.

but i think it would be good for CA to expand the title into different Eras because staying in Eras where melee combat is dominant..while not bad. would get stale. since a lot of the animations will end up being the same , an slapping another theme on to it.

while i am more pro melee combat due to the fact that earlier eras don't have things that can completely exterminate a unit. but from a challenge and strategy perspective fighting such things is fun to me atleast.

but as i've said as a personal preference , ignoring the conversation topic.

I'd prefer something where i could build cities with custom maps. so that the strategies an tactics are always shifting theres no fixed best path.

but since the topic is "is it possible" an the answer is "Yes" so long as CA exists an so long as TW is a game franchise its a possibility that they will eventually attempt a WW2 game.

because even if the current people working there don't wish to , inevitably there will be a changing of the guard an those individuals might decide to make one. However i still think that Warhammer seems like a chance to experiment with flying units while not diverging to much from their current formula. and i can't thnk of a reason to want to experiment with flying units unless they were planning to do something new after they finish with the Warhammer games.

Your ideas are laughable.

"armoured vehicles would basically just be reskinned cavalry" - This is asinine.

It will never happen.

As far as the engine goes. they function exactly the same.

what you see , is just a skin below that is just a block moving around with little graphic or animation to it. the projectiles are graphically drawing the smaller item shot from said block.

Everything you see is a painted on theme. the game below that is the same everywhere.

[Sarkin]

Alexander Sarayev a écrit :

Well what about the map? I mean if we look at HOI3 we'll see that th entire frontline was coveered, it was no longer just being able to freely march armies from place to place, entire borders were blocked off by divisions.

Well we have the "zones' of control for that if we want to try an stick to it closely. We also have the ability to use Bunkers/forts as ways to use armies to hold lines. Though might require going back to the "armies with out generals" method of moving armies around. but then without Nobles that might not be a big issue just hire one when you need one.(or promote it like in Empire).

[Crowkeeper]

Jian a écrit :

Nitrotrinadium a écrit :

Your ideas are laughable.

"armoured vehicles would basically just be reskinned cavalry" - This is asinine.

It will never happen.

As far as the engine goes. they function exactly the same.

what you see , is just a skin below that is just a block moving around with little graphic or animation to it. the projectiles are graphically drawing the smaller item shot from said block.

Everything you see is a painted on theme. the game below that is the same everywhere.

You're not understanding, of course. The idea of groups of armoured vehicles moving in unison or acting in any way like cavalry does in TW is laughable. As I have said numerous times, it would no longer be total war, it would be a joke.

[Sarkin]

Nitrotrinadium a écrit :

Jian a écrit :

As far as the engine goes. they function exactly the same.

what you see , is just a skin below that is just a block moving around with little graphic or animation to it. the projectiles are graphically drawing the smaller item shot from said block.

Everything you see is a painted on theme. the game below that is the same everywhere.

You're not understanding, of course. The idea of groups of armoured vehicles moving in unison or acting in any way like cavalry does in TW is laughable. As I have said numerous times, it would no longer be total war, it would be a joke.

Armoured units do move in 'unison'

they travel in battallions in modern warfare they're always grouped in units of 4.

they are under the command of the commander of that battalion. who orders them around as he sees fit more often then not they move together focus their fire on targets as needed. an keep moving an firing.

it would as far as the game mechanics go . be no different than ordering around Archer cavalry in Shogun. except for maybe the fact infantry would be almost useless against tanks without some form of explosive.

[Crowkeeper]

Jian a écrit :

Nitrotrinadium a écrit :

You're not understanding, of course. The idea of groups of armoured vehicles moving in unison or acting in any way like cavalry does in TW is laughable. As I have said numerous times, it would no longer be total war, it would be a joke.

Armoured units do move in 'unison'

they travel in battallions in modern warfare they're always grouped in units of 4.

they are under the command of the commander of that battalion. who orders them around as he sees fit more often then not they move together focus their fire on targets as needed. an keep moving an firing.

it would as far as the game mechanics go . be no different than ordering around Archer cavalry in Shogun. except for maybe the fact infantry would be almost useless against tanks without some form of explosive.

This is why people like you don't design video games.