安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
If you're talking American Civil War then i doubt they'd ever do a full game around it, besides the US i doubt anyone else actually cares enough to buy it and CA are brits anyway so you don't even have the patriotism bs to push it out.
I have to say I agree with Kinja on this. As amazingly importantant the civil war was to americans it was just another civil war to everyone else in the world, as far as I am concerned you may as well do the spanish civil war, and I am not even spanish either.
Another issue with doing pretty much any civil war is the same issue with all the people pushing for a LOTR or Star Wars total war. I believe that you can't have a "good" total war game with just 2 major factions (yes I know shogan 2 tried it, but to me it was the worst part of that game).
To me just having good vs evil, north vs south, nationalist vs republican, imperial vs shoganate, etc etc etc really kill off the "total" part of the total war games.
They are just my views though.
It can be done, Industrial: Total War would have to have a major shift in its game mechanics though in order to be playable. Like vary different. For one maps will have to be much larger to accommodate mechanized warfare.
What I think most people will have to accommodate for is that in the WW1 WW2, battles were really a series of dramas against small groups of men; aside form a small number of large scale assaults, The Somme, D-Day, Stalingrad. And small scale skirmish's are not what total war is about. My idea to fix this is having a redesign to the way armies work on the campaign map. You can still have your large stacks move about but their area of control will have to be much larger.
For example, You can have 3 stacks of units spread across a front line of 5 tiles. if a stack of enemy units charges the center you go to the battle map and their force is going against your small stack but even though your reinforcements are 3-5 tiles away they will arrive providing they have transportation to the battle. Something like 1-2 tiles away they can walk, 3-5 tiles away they need some transport like trucks/apc's. Also they will not arrive instantly and In fact my not arrive in time if the enemy steamrolls you.
In a battle you will also not have a unit of 120 men. In fact only conscripts or partisans my have what we consider to be a large number of units. I'm thinking of 20 men per unit. They will then be more like squads. They will have formations like take cover/dig in, spread out, form a line etc. Also you will probably have many more units stacks to keep track of but for most people systems can be made to make keeping track of them much essayer.
Things like tanks will only be one unit on the map. and moved much like ships with 5 man crews that can abandon the vehicle and continue fighting much like artillery
Speaking of artillery you can have fire orders form units in a army a tile away that will have a cool down, much like naval bombardment in Shogun2. Or in the same map that can have a much faster rate of fire. You will have traditional artillery much like Howitzers and also things like Anti Tank Canons
Air craft will work much like reinforcements and also will function like in Wargame. They will arrive from nearby air bases and will be able to be called in for missions like scout or attack, depending on the plane. Bombers on the other hand like the Goliath and B-17 will of course most likely not be in the battles and will just be units for attacking enemy hard points. ie city's and unit stacks, think of how agents work now only they are tied to a city or air field.
For those who want trench warfare know that just as army's can build forts think of that only they will build a trench system that they will then be able to defend or attack form. In battle many units of that era can dig in making makeshift trench's but they will not be permanent nor will they be as complex and well built as a system that had time and forsight planed in. In the whole game you can make a network of trench's that with tech research can be made more and more harder to break. You can even build your own Maginoal line but know for all that time and money an enemy could just by pass it. Although They can be linked to act like a wall. So you can have a unit stack sitting in a trench and if an enemy tries to pass through a connected trench two tiles away you can intercept them and stop them form crossing and a battle will start as though they attacked your army directly.
Tech research will work much like in Empire but there will be a lot more to do. Also I don't think the campaign will flow exactly like in real life but will progress in a fashion to its own accord. For the campaign just think of all the cool systems that will work depending of if your nation is a monarchy, democracy, or fascist.
also the time the game will encompass should be from the start of the industrial era, about 1890 and should go all the way though to 1960's. Today's war is much different from the time of the WW1 WW2 and even proxy Cold War like Vietnam and Afghanistan. Using much the same systems you could go all the way to today but that is debatable.
Ive actually thought a good deal on how a total war game would work in the modern era. Like I said it will play vary different from the games of the past. After all we don't see many pike men on today's battlefield.
Well that turned into a wall of text and yet that is only a brief list of my design doc I have. And yes to any dev at Creative Assembly I really would love a job. I live in South Carolina USA at the present but am willing to relocate to what ever office you wish to stick me. I know I don't have much related experience but I have a background in CAD design and know and am learning a fair amount of programing. But my strength is design but I understand I need to work up to that position.
Hey a man can try right?
Not even 30 units with about 20 men each? Playing on a map 50% larger than what we normally get? Like I said modern war is really many small victories snowballing into larger gains. Since 20th century wars are not really thousands of men smashing into each other with sharp implements. My system could be best described as Total War esk. To make this era of combat work and still feel like it belongs in this franchise some major tweaks in the mechanics are needed.
And anyway I intend to make a game like I described above, once I have my main project out of the way. It plays much like a Civilization game but has a few total war aspects like how the real time battles work and some aspects of how the campaign runs. But I would need a team behind me for that lol. Which I plan to do as soon as the Indy Game Dev thing starts showing a return on investment. I just thought working for CA would be cool.
Civilization: Total War -2017 (Tradmarkable Name Pending)
Like Warhammer Total War?
Personally I like the Idea of getting some fantasy action in this franchise. And as we have seen with Roam 2 sometimes trying so hard to keep to the original while also reinventing the same time leads to dissapointment in both. Most people seem to feel that trying something different is akin to heresy (pun intended)
Look at what COD or any other game that comes out every year and their level of gratification. It diminishes over a time and they have now become entombed in their ways. If EA tomorrow announced a COD that functioned differently like say a old Tom Clancy game people will be up in arms about how they have betrayed their fan base.
And you are quiet correct and I am excited to see what they do. And like I said the campaign will play vary different than the TW games of old. And wait till I release some Chaos sorracry up side someones backside.
Just try to keep in mind that all things change, many time for the better and sometimes not. And even if things stay the same when taking into account the rest of the world changing around it is it really true to say that its self dose not then change?
Not everyone wants a Industrial: TW but that should not stop them from trying. Who knows maybe there will be some converts
Nonetheless, I can't help but notice, how you you miss the main problem of discussion.
There is "Hearts of iron" serires, which boasts humongous strategical map and grand army maneuvers.
There is "Compnay of heroes" series with large amount of micro: choosing cover, manually ordering to throw a grenade, carefully setting up machine guns and field artillery, so that it can't be flanked.
These are good examples of WWII games. Since total war formula is grand strategy plus tactical combat, it would be logical to make HoI / CoH hybrid and call it next total war?
Unfortunately, it is a bad idea. It is impossible to run a simulation of largest conflict in human history, where you will play every company vs company skirmish. How many battles will you have per turn? Hundred something? Some players would reach retirement age by the time they finish grand campaign
WW1 would work, I think there is a great WW1 mod for Fall of the Samurai from Shogun 2