Victorian Era: Why it would and wouldn't work

[Leo]

Many of these threads talk about how a Victorian Total War would be better than the Three Kingdom's period, however this probably wouldn't work so well for a couple of reasons:

1) The locations of the conflict would remain mostly colonial in real life, and would be harder to represent easily in the Total War universe without having to restrict certain campaigns for certain regions

2) The scale of the conflicts were also smaller bar the Crimean War, which may seem comparable to a modernised version of Napoleon in terms of weaponry.

3) The main development of technology, colonialisation and diplomacy surrounding it as well as economy will need to be focused on a lot more than in previous games, something which CA isn't known to touch upon too deeply in many of the Total War games.

This is not to say a Victorian Era Total War game would not work, I simply think games such as Victoria II capture the era in a better fashion and seems to be

However the idea of a Medieval 3 Total War game would be the most achievable and from this strawpoll [www.strawpoll.me] seems to be the most popular idea, with the Chinese Warring States period (including the Three Kingdoms) being a popular contendor.

The choice of CA hasn't been a stupid one in my opinion as it does cater to a lot of fans, and does bring a good mix of fantasy/history or if not then it is a fresher setting, which will have an interesting story for itself.


However, those who do like the idea probably would like to read this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/65mtya/possible_historical_total_war_victoria/

[Fantoche]

But they did it, didn't they? You forget Empire Total war

[frostsid]

I honestly fail to understand how people think a TW in a WW2 setting would work.

On topic, I agree with what you say, I think the more complicated thing for CA to pull off in a Victorian setting would be the diplomacy and the economy.

EDIT: I understand why people ask for a Medieval 3, veteran players have good memories of the first two games and I guess it is a popular period for newcomers. But I think it would be bad for CA always come back to the same period. And honestly comercially speaking it wouldn't be wise to release two games set in medieval Europe this year.

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by Liam Norris:

Many of these threads talk about how a Victorian Total War would be better than the Three Kingdom's period, however this probably wouldn't work so well for a couple of reasons:

1) The locations of the conflict would remain mostly colonial in real life, and would be harder to represent easily in the Total War universe without having to restrict certain campaigns for certain regions

2) The scale of the conflicts were also smaller bar the Crimean War, which may seem comparable to a modernised version of Napoleon in terms of weaponry.

3) The main development of technology, colonialisation and diplomacy surrounding it as well as economy will need to be focused on a lot more than in previous games, something which CA isn't known to touch upon too deeply in many of the Total War games.

You make some good points. While I would love to see the Zulus and Maori, it would be a fair bit harder to make the whole campaign feel somewhat different for for not very focused campaigns.

That's why I think a TW set in the time period Empire was set in, from the mid to late 1600s to the late 17 to very early 1800s.

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by frostsid:

I honestly fail to understand how people think a TW in a WW2 setting would work.

On topic, I agree with what you say, I think the more complicated thing for CA to pull off in a Victorian setting would be the diplomacy and the economy.

EDIT: I understand why people ask for a Medieval 3, veteran players have good memories of the first two games and I guess it is a popular period for newcomers. But I think it would be bad for CA always come back to the same period. And honestly comercially speaking it wouldn't be wise to release two games set in medieval Europe this year.

Well, I know it would be a lot better than a WW1 TW game. I think we can all agree on that.

At least with WW2, there'd be a bit more tactical options, if only a few.

[frostsid]

As for WW2 I don't think it would fit well with TW the battles are more squad bases instead of huge armies facing each other. A bit off topic, SEGA could get CA and Relic Entertainment to make a WW2 game. CA would take care of the campaign map and all that stuff and Relic the battles. It would be a mix of Total War and Company of Heroes :D

[Dragoon]

Victoria TW would be great. Anglo-Zulu war in Africa, European colonization and invasions of Africa and Asia, etc.

It'd be a fragmented campaign map, but doable like in Empire TW.

[Digger]

Not trying to be a ♥♥♥♥ but the Victorian Era would be an absolute trash Total War game. This era in history simply wasn't an era of 'Total War' it was more about diplomacy and gun boat tactics than outright conquest. Aside from a few relatively large, yet localised conflicts such as the Crimean War, American Civil War and the expansion of Prussia their was ♥♥♥♥ all else happening of interest.

Like Liam said, it is best saved for games with better diplomatic and economic mechanics like Paradox's Victoria and Victoria II.

[Shad]

Originally posted by Beenjammin:

Not trying to be a ♥♥♥♥ but the Victorian Era would be an absolute trash Total War game. This era in history simply wasn't an era of 'Total War' it was more about diplomacy and gun boat tactics than outright conquest. Aside from a few relatively large, yet localised conflicts such as the Crimean War, American Civil War and the expansion of Prussia their was ♥♥♥♥ all else happening of interest.

The biggest issue isn't even that. The problem is that the battle mechanics of TW games simply fall apart in post-Napoleonic conflicts. The rise of breech-loaded rifles and artillery led to the disappearance of infantry blocks from the battlefield (which what all TW games use). After that, you need earthworks, trenches, single line formations, platoon-based tactics, different equipment within the unit and so on.

Fall of the Samurai was the latest period where the TW mechanics still worked (more or less).

[Leo]

Originally posted by Shad:

The biggest issue isn't even that. The problem is that the battle mechanics of TW games simply fall apart in post-Napoleonic conflicts. The rise of breech-loaded rifles and artillery led to the disappearance of infantry blocks from the battlefield (which what all TW games use). After that, you need earthworks, trenches, single line formations, platoon-based tactics, different equipment within the unit and so on.

Fall of the Samurai was the latest period where the TW mechanics still worked (more or less).

Honestly the biggest problem with CA is the advancement of how they develop Total War games

After all within the yearly gap they surely would have been able to make Attila stand out a bit more besides the Horde Mechanics and Decimation, although their fleshing out of Rome 2 concepts were appreciated.

TW mechanics simply wouldn't be possible unless it were to have a drastic increase in development effort

[Leo]

gonna bump this so people who want a pro-Victorian game can see the unlikelihood

[frostsid]

Also, I wanna add that due to the massive change in tactics and diplomacy a WW1 game is also very unlikely. Not to mention WW2 that keeps poping up for some reason.

[Mile pro Libertate]

There have been tons of threads about this.

I've written a lot about why stuff post c. 1800 is really, really hard for TW.

The main idea is this: the nation-state.

TW is not a paradox or spreadsheet game. Modeling the nation-state is pretty much impossible in TW without making it ridiculously cheesy or fake.

TW can somewhat believably show city states, allodial feudalism, kimgdoms and over kingdoms, and classical empires.

[Too Much Salt]

I kind of agree with OP. Victorian era sees little conflict in Europe except for Crimean War, it mostly involves imperialism which is set outside Europe.

I love gunpowder era & feel that American war of independence (Empire) & Napoleon are better substitutes to victorian. In fact, if CA wanted to make a gunpowder era, won't be surprised they would do a Empire 2.

After TW3K , I doubt they would make another new era. Peace.

[acur1231]

The latest TW will work is 1890. Beyond that, you are looking for WW1 games like Verdun and Rise of Flight and To End All Wars.

[Leo]

Originally posted by acur1231:

The latest TW will work is 1890. Beyond that, you are looking for WW1 games like Verdun and Rise of Flight and To End All Wars.

But in reality, would it work as well as we would want it too? Would CA be able to pull it off? From what I think its a clear cut no