Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
This is something I really do want to find, done enjoyably, in a game at some point.
If you think the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ mashups that typify rome2 battles are even remotley "formation" based you are truly hopeless.
It's a pretty logical progression, especially WWI- which actually was fought largely like that even when the officers weren't being complete idiots.
History disagrees, especially since modern tactics- for better and worse- were evolutions form those old set piece battle tactics.
As for "it'd be morally reprehensible/imagine having to choose a Kristalnacht event!!!"....
Guys, how many of you have been sacking or exterminating provinces? Burning assets in the countryside? Sending agents around with the plague to hostile cities? Inciting revolt and then crushing it down to further control? Butchering prisoners by the thousand by cliking execute?
TW hasn't exactly been the most saintly of games. It's only even started to come close in some older mods and Empire-Shogun 2 either not giving you the choice of what to do to POWs or captured settlements or penalizing the dickens out of you for pillaging.
I don't see a problem with it, TBH. Let players who wanna be the bad guy play the bad guy.
Exactly. That's my approach, personally. And I do think the Total War series- for all its' flaws- has walked an admirable path of not running terrified from it without succumbing into tastelessness and horror.
I'm still peeved at Paradox's hypocrisy on the "No Holocaust No Swastikas" stance. Not because I usually get thrilled at the concept of murdering millions of innocent people in a genocide (I rarely play Germany in HoI to be honest0. But because it's simultaneously hypocritical, unfree, and inconsistent.
Just because i don't see the point in having Genocide Simulator Mod mk 4 doesn't mean that I don't think somebody should have the right to put it up if they wanted to. And I do believe there could be interest in it even in good faith and by people of good morals. But Paradox simply doesn't want to include bad and controversial things in their game! You say!
Yeah. Right.
They also including the Rape of Nanking in vanilla, and without even allowing the Japanese player to have a choice in it. So even if there was still a sizable internal struggle against militarism in Japan at the time and some hope that the moderates could've clawed there way back (especially with player help), the Japanese player gets saddled with having an army of babykillers no matter what. And then we have things like the Great Purge for the Soviets....
For all of my issues with the Total War series, I have never been angry about how it's handled unsavory stuff like this.
The Campaign game looks OK, though possibly limited to Europe, it was in German and har dto watch soI could be wrong.
The Battles though looked awful.
Solid blocks of Infantry, Guns firing over open sights and trenches that looked like Napoleon Redbouts.
Thing is the guy doing the commmentary was almost wetting himself with excitement.
In terms of a Battle/Campaign Simulator I don't think CA could pull off either WW I or WW II, not the least because some sides have such a poor strategic situation it's hard to see them winning, but mostly because the Armies involved are ridiculously huge.
Just maybe the Engine could do a segment of the Action. The War in Tanganika could work, most of the WW I minor theatres might. But Verdun, Tannenburg, The Somme or Ypres forget it.
I don't think this topic is going away any time soon, plenty of people like the idea, it just needs one person with passion and skill to make a viable mod that proves it's practical.
The Campaign game looks OK, though possibly limited to Europe, it was in German and har dto watch soI could be wrong.
The Battles though looked awful.
Solid blocks of Infantry, Guns firing over open sights and trenches that looked like Napoleon Redbouts.
Thing is the guy doing the commmentary was almost wetting himself with excitement.
In terms of a Battle/Campaign Simulator I don't think CA could pull off either WW I or WW II, not the least because some sides have such a poor strategic situation it's hard to see them winning, but mostly because the Armies involved are ridiculously huge.
Just maybe the Engine could do a segment of the Action. The War in Tanganika could work, most of the WW I minor theatres might. But Verdun, Tannenburg, The Somme or Ypres forget it.
I don't think this topic is going away any time soon, plenty of people like the idea, it just needs one person with passion and skill to make a viable mod that proves it's practical.
That to the best of my knowledge has been in perpetual beta. And in any event is far, far, Far outshown by this.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?1608-The-Great-War-%28TGW%29
Sorry it's not yoru cuppa, and if you are talking about the Empire mod I'd highly suggest TGW. It still has a lot of similar problems, but it's far, Far better.
That being said, solid blocks of infantry- or some close equivalent- were largely how infantry fought throughout TGW in major battles. Though they were not as solid or inflexible as the engine allows, it's something that has to be dealt with. Guns firing over open sights? That'd probably be the sort of volley rifle fire that made the British famous at Mons. It actually happened. No excouse on the redbouts though.
But on the whole it's still one of the more realistic simulators of WWI fighting I've seen. Though it does work far better if you're limiting it to looking at the pre-digging in phase of the West or the mobile warfar eof the East, since a lot of the stuff there- volley fire, infantry blocks, redbouts instead of trenches- are accurate to that. Though that still makes it the best engine I've seen for simulating early WWI combat in a long while.
So were the Armies of Rome in particular, and TCA was able to finesse that with no particular problems. Would it be perfect? No. But it'd be possible.
Funny you mention Tannenburg, because I honestly could see it working even with the mod stuff done to date. If anything, it sounds like that Empire mod and TGW were *made* to model that. The only problem I think would not be with the combat, but with how they'd space out the different battles that happened or what have you. If they could get that finished, I do think the existing mod could handle the battle.
Verdun, The Somme, and Ypres are far bigger issues. I particular since they tended to weigh not on one great climatic single day battle, but on ffifty or so major battles spaced over days and weeks and months and over different objectives and parts of the terrain. That is something I believe the engine and maps are Not prepared to deal with. Which is the problem. The engine isn't built to have that sort of thing, and while some mods like 1648, RotK, and BEIC can approximate it they don't really get there.
Ypres I think is probably the closest to being able to be done justice on the existing system. Depending on one battle, it strikes me as the sort of thing that you actually could compress into a one map, representative-units "historical battle" covering something like the major battles such as 3rd Ypres.
The others are still far beyond it. Unless they'd try to take it all in one go with a map or set up more intricate fortifications on the campaign map that could be progressively attacked and defended over several turns. And therein lies my rub, not the unit sizes.
Interesting indeed, and thanks fo rthe considering. Sorry you haven't found any that'd like it yet.
I'm not sure if you've actually tried it, but I'd like to recommend TGW. It's certainly far more advanced than that Empire mod, and it's in a playable state. So you could try and see how it goes for yourself. The fact that it comes with an installer/setup now that doesn't mean you have to play file backup helps.
Regards!
take that same number to a world war 2 game and the you only need a squad (12 men) for a unit to be efficient. a squad is capable of holding, pinning, and flanking on its own. and even if we dont go that low and do, say, the company level, thats still 50/men a unit and at least 5000 units to control in a battle.
should you go higher than that, say the platoon level as the base unit, you lose the tactics performed at the company/squad scale, go higher than that, and it stops being a tactical game in the style of total war and becomes more of something like a small scale hearts of iron or Battle of the Bulge by Shenandoa Studios. basically, you cant have large blocks of units for this type of warfare, and a total war WWII would play far differently than previous eras. the design and mechanics of total war games do NOT fit with wwii. and if you tried to adapt them to the current total war engine/design, you would have to sacrifice alot realism and complexities of wwii battles. alternatively, if you broke the design mold of total war and made a game fit for wwii, it may well be a completely different series.
there was a game by square enix called order of war which probably comes close to what a wwii total war battle would be like, but its there that you see the limitations. battles in that game, while actuall battles in history, are a small slice of the overall battlefield, meaning you never truly control or fight the battle in full. to accommodate this in a total war campaign you'd have to have like 2 or 3 outer strategic maps. you'd have the tactical map battles where you fight on the company level ala Order of War(they would take place in timed sections so that the overall battle would still flow around them) , a strategic/tactical level where you manuever regiments into combat (something like shenandoa's Battle of the Bulge), a second strategic outer layer where you move divisions, an outer layer that would be economic, diplomatic, and large army movement. that would take a LONG time not only to make but to simply play. essentially, something on the total war scale where you can go from a grand overview of the world down to a single soldier is just not feasible. we havent even gotten to supply systems yet :P.
a wwii style game would be better fit for a different engine such as Eugen's excellent wargame engine (play it, it'll teach you a bunch about how modern combat works) or even the hegemony series, just not total war.
i suppose you could still try to do a total war game in wwii, it'd just be on a smaller theatre or battles rather than controlling entire countries.
TL;DR
total war just doesnt work for wwii and a wwii game, if made remotely accurately, would be far from any total war we know.
i highly reccomend anyone wanting a wwii total war to play Battle Academy or one of Eugen's Wargame games to get an idea of how combat on the smaller scale takes place and how it doesnt fit total war. then play a game like Battle of the Bulge or Desert fox and see how wwii works on the division level (each single unit consists of all the units you would deploy in a battle academy or wargame game). and then play hearts of iron to see how the grand strategic scale of things is. do that, and you realize that a total war wwii wont work or simply wouldnt be a total war game like we know it.
Personally, I wouldn't even play a Total war in the WW1 or WW2 era. It is both tasteless and boring. This might be a good theme for a FPS or whatever, but not for this sort of game, for so many reasons. That said: I also am not interested in Napoleon etc, once all units use firearms the game becomes utterly uninteresting.A mix is okay, such as in Medieval II. I also didn't play Napoleon. I got nothing against that game though, however i would hold a strong grudge against any possible WW1 or WW2 CA games...
Oh and if somebody wonders why it is "tasteless". Well, think about "city-razing" in WW2, well genocide isn't fun to me. WW2 should still be in our heads when it comes to that. The whole Rome2 and Medieval2 scenario does not come cluse to the the massive genocide, attempted genocides, war crimes and massacres that occured during WW2, which make such a game tasteless beyond anything... And if you take away the whole city-management, well, then it is not a Total War game. So that option would be there, one way or the other.
Really?
Then what made you interested in this series in the first place?
And do you really think fantasy isn't limited? Especially on the scale of what would be effective to be put in a TW engine. So I'm really sorry you think that, but you should probably phrase it better to avoid being outright
Already been done, and done for free. Go to the Total War forums for Medieval II: Kingdoms mods, and look for Rise of Three Kingdoms/RotK. Though frankly most adaptations of the Three Kingdoms barely qualify as even remotely historical (RotK being a noteworthy exception), so that might help. The fact that Romance starts out as fantisized, mythologized imperial propaganda does not help.
In any event, hope you enjoy.
Saying blanket statements like that without trying (like say, TGW mod) is ignorant and offensive You don't want to do Napoleon or the like? That's fair enough. But then limit yourself and say that YOU find it both tasteless and boring. Don't insult me and every other person who might not feel that way by that.
I've always been confused about this line of through. A gun is just another tool on the battlefield, albeit one that dominates most infantry warfare after a period. It doesn't exist in isolation to other things (including the bayonet that sticks off of the most modern incarnations of it) I realize it's a matter of taste an preference so I cannot blame anybody for feeling that way, but I've always found the way they try and explain it to be Bizzare.
Wat.
Have you EVER clicked on the third button in Rome/Medieval II?
Have you EVER gotten rid of a horde faction in Barbarian invasion?? Or maybe we might extend it to amost any faction in Rome or maybe Medieval II?
Well WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
That's committing genocide, either certainly (in the case of the former two) or more ambiguously. Going through a captured city and giving the order to "Exterminate" or "Sacrifice" is hardly anything else. Capturing their final city and then attacking those trying to flee (even those that fight) is likewise. And the latter is far more important than the former because while you can get away with no Exterminating or even Sacking in the old games, you Definitely can't eliminate a barbarian faction in BI without that.
Genocide has been featured into this game almost from the start. Extermination of family trees/clans on the basis of who they're related to alone HAS BEEN in the series since the start (regarding Japanese clan politics and Euro/Near Eastern/MesoAmerican dynastic ones). Those Roman Legionnaires with their short swords, Greek phalangites with their spears, Germanic//Gallic tribes with their clubs, and Eastern factions with their arrows killed entire ethnic and cultural groups off in their time.
The knights that went into the Baltics wiped out the actual Prussians and nearly did the same to the Lithuanians. When they captured Jerusalem (probably a Sack or Exterminate order at the least) they killed almost the entire city's Muslim and Jewish populations. And in turn the Muslims happily executed cities and prisoners that did not convert (and forced oconversionof the survivors under draconian law), the Mesoamericans involved themselves in extreme bloodletting against each other (the Maya lesso but till somehat).
And the noble and military families of the samurai believed that not a single Ikko-Ikki was worth keeping alive and that it was best to eradicate the entire family of somebody you had gone up against but defeated. And often enough the entire families of those who supported them. THEN we get into the Timurids and Mongols and things get even more bloodstained.
"The whole Rome2 and Medieval2 scenario does not come cluse to the the massive genocide, attempted genocides, war crimes and massacres that occured during WW2," You say?
NO. WRONG.
The Mongol death train in Medieval II that typically rips through Russia and will go to Poland and Hungary historically killed a far higher proportion of the Russian and Hungarian populations than the Nazis would centuries later. On the other side of the world they also wellll outpaced the Japanese by similar statistics.
Even on the lower side of things, the Romans committed genocide through outright killing or slavery aganst the something of a quarter of a million strong population Carthage still had at the time of the Third Punic War. And they also went out of their way by the end to try and eliminate Israel and the Jewish faith after several increasingly half-baked revolts and oppsition. Killing at least hundreds of thousands, enslaving even more, and destroying entire cities and villages at the time. Likewise with Caesar's campaigns against Gallic tribes that displeased him, and others.
But hey! I guess since it was done centuries ago by and to people whose names you don't recognize with things other than guns, I guess that's kosher for you?
All Of This has been the backdrop of these games for a long, long time. If anything, it's only in Empire, Napoleon, and Shogun 2 where either they don't give you a choice or it's better to not do the nasty things than it is to do it from a gameplay balance standard (and for obvious reasons they would follow that pattern in any WWI or WWII era game precisely because of the obvious moral issues. Including the moral outrage of your own). I cannot dignify anything or anybody claiming otherwise and demeaning those who would "dare" to imagine more modern games as DELUDED.
Because when you go onto talking about how you'll have a "grudge" against any more modern TW game (oh Boh Hoo) and then say claim a WWI or WWII game would be tasteless on false grounds, you've moved past a polite difference of opinion alone. And onto insulting the wishes and work of others (like The Great War group), and distorting history and the games themselves.
Please. Familiarize. Yourself. With The History. before you venture to say things like this Again. Because you clearly don't know what you're standing on with your argument.
Agreed.
False. While it almost certainly *would* be there and I'd even say Should be (for reasons I'll get to in a bit, hold off the crucifixtion for a while) Empire had absolutely no choice once you conquered a settlement. It was one of the areas where I believe they cut a feature and which I believed made the experience less complex. But they still *did it*. It still worked.
And to be honest, it does demonstrate ho relatively low on the scale this would be. Since without more modding to the system as it stands, it'd involve just removing a pop up menu.
That being said, I do think that if they handle this era, it should be addressed. Not because I adore genocide or the idea of hitting the third button at every oppertunity. If anything I almost never do. But the bottom line is that it's there, it's a vey real and sensitive part of the histroy, and the mechanics have been around for something like a decade. All of that means it should be treated well.
Oh, Also: fantasy Guys. You wanna talk about fantasy? Lord of the Rings? Romance of the Three Kingdoms (more arguably)? *WARHAMMER*? Guess what those would feature?
What do you expect the armies of Sauron or Saruman to do to the "world of the West"? Take the first option for nonviolence but simmering dissent? I'm sure the people of Rohan would've liked to know that.
Ditto every single faction in Warhammer. Especially Chaos but with some emphasis on those fighting it, considering how intractably nasty it and its' followers are. Both of which are loyally represented in the best mods on those that are avalible.
The armies of the Three Kingdoms era came up under the Han, who inherited a lot of the Qin/Warring States era traditions of "attack the civilization population, kill prisoners surrendering prisoners by the hundreds of thousands*, and generally do nasty things." The number of leaders who *didn't* do that is as remarkable as those who did. And which gets more than a passing mention in the Romance, especially if it is about tarring people like Cao Cao or others the Imperial editors didn't like..
Keep your preferences, becaue there is nothing wrong with them (as a fan of LotR, Three Kingdoms, Warhammer, and to a lesser degree M&M). But at least deal with this honestly, especially the fact that the series will have to deal with this stuff one way or another *regardless* of setting.
Like it has been for a good long while. Pretending that the real life world wars are the only subjects tainted by it is not only being blind, it's not helping anybody's case.
Personally, while I have massive issues with TCA and SEGA now, I do have faith in how they've handled a lot of touchy subjects. Like the subject of Mesoamerican sacrifices which pop up on the capture scrolls for both people and cities, and the voice over and text boxes that showed that Mesoamericans tended to have a very different view towards sacrifice than Europeans/Muslims/Mongols had to being captured and cut to death summarily. I'm not sure they still have it,but I have hope that they could deal with it well.
And if not, Moderators certainly can.
Anyway, on the subject of good mods regarding those that can help tide you guys over...
For Lord of the Rings: if you've got Rome 1, try Fourth Age Total War. If you've got Medieval II Kingdoms, try Third Age Total War.
For Warhammer (classic): Call of Warhammer/Rage of the Dark Gods: Battle for the Empire/whateverthey'recallingitThisMonth because of legal issues, and The Sundering: Rise of the Witch King. Both for Medieval II Kingdoms.
Three Kingdoms: If this were a few months earlier I'd have suggested a Rome 1 mod, but since then Rise of Three Kingdoms for Medieval II Kingdos has pretty mmuch become the definitive version of it.
And if by some chance you are interested in seeing what people have done with a WWI engine and setting, try The Great War for Napoleon.
In any wya, regards.