Shogun II: Total War

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Uh the Boshin war takes place almost around the same period as the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian war so why would it not be possible?

They finally got ironclads and railroads in. It'd be a complete waste not to take that further, especially now that fleets can bombard coastal areas.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

Uh the Boshin war takes place almost around the same period as the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian war so why would it not be possible.

They finally got ironclads and railroads in. It'd be a complete waste not to take that further, especially now that fleets can bombard coastal areas.

About 900000+1200000 soldiers of both sides were involved in the Franco-Prussian War, and about 2100000+1000000 during the Civil War. In contrast, the Boshin War saw only 30000+80000 soldiers. The manpower mobilized, and thus the scale of battles fought, is vastly different.

However, I didn't meant that it's impossible, just that it will require some...adjustments. It's WWI and beyond which I consider not feasible. I mean, who wants to play a campaign map where you basically order hundreds of thousands of troops to attack enemy trenches every turn/day just to gain a few extra meters for over four years(~365*4 turns)? I'd rather play in the more fluid operations of the Eastern Front or the Middle East even if it's going to be fought by troops with inferior weapons.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Not sure what the issue is.

THe battle of Alesia in 52 BC was recorded to be at least 50,000 legionaries against 100,000 Gauls.

The Battle of Cannae involved around similar numbers as well.

The battle of Chalons involved around 200,000 men in combat.

Then there's Alexander's the Great Campaigning against Darius and the Chinese Empires various battles that make others look tiny in comparison.

The battle of Waterloo involved 100,000 against 280,000 men.

All of these battles were in the time periods that most TW games have played so you cannot argue against that.

In fact we even have mods running around about the American Civil war and such so what exactly is the issue?

Various battles of the Franco-Prussian war involved around 30,000 men per side. Note I am talking about battles not the entire campaign. Those are two different things.

In fact one of the key features of that war was the use of the railroads to mobilise troops faster which the Prussians did to great effect.

Guess what? We now have railroads to use to transfer troops from one area of the map to another quickly.

And also now have 40 units instead of 20 on the battle.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

50,000 legionaries against 100,000 Gauls.

200,000 men in combat.

100,000 against 280,000 men.

None of the above battles involve more than 500 thousand men. The wars I quoted involved ~2.1 million and ~3.1 million, respectively. Just because they belong to the same time frame doesn't mean they are automatically similar.

And this is just about the battles. Talking about Total War is to talk in equal measure regarding individual battles and overall campaigns. How exactly will the campaign map be?

Well, the maps are going to need complete revamping, for one. The "France's territory in Europe consists of a single province" interpretation in Empire is completely out of the question. In fact, it will probably need to be splintered into twenty regions or something, and same deal for every other nations.

But this will mean huge number of provinces, and I mean insanely huge. You think completing the normal TW goal of conquering and administrating 60 provinces is hard? Well if we go full Victorian Age there's probably thousands of provinces involved ranging from Europe to Africa to Middle East and Persia to India to South East Asia to China and Japan and America and...well you get the picture.

The only reasonable way for players to truly savor being in command of all the famous conflicts is then to not have a global campaign map. Instead, there will be separate maps, Napoleon TW style, each covering the selected War while being not connected with the other campaigns. So a Civil War campaign will not have maps of Europe, the 2nd Italian War of Independence campaign will have no mention of India, the Opium Wars only show provinces in China and so on.

That, or wait a decade till our computers can handle a truly satisfying global campaign map.

And again, I must emphasize that I'm not saying that a Franco-Prussian or Civil War is impossible - it's doable, actually. But there's going be some wanking required.

The World Wars, OTOH...I don't think any campaign map will do justice.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Interesting that this is NOT an add-on but a whole new game. Makes sense, as the game mechanics would have to be changed.

And yeah, as others suggested, I believe they are laying the foundations for a WW1 game.

I don't know. There's a pretty big difference between the kind of combat you had even up to the immediate post Civil war period (late 1860's) and what you had in World War 1. Boshin war doesn't really lay the foundation to making a World War 1 game. By WW1 armies had completley abandoned the use of any kind of strict solid infantry field formation in combat conditions...and controlling said blocks precisely in real time is the entire basis of the total war series.

I think the problem is that by WW1 (especially later on) you had more emphasis on individual squads/platoons maneuvering independently of their mother formations. That's something that in a game requires more automation of individual tactical movements...or the overall scale being reduced to allow the player to micromanage.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Tiresias

None of the above battles involve more than 500 thousand men. The wars I quoted involved ~2.1 million and ~3.1 million, respectively. Just because they belong to the same time frame doesn't mean they are automatically similar.

None of the battles you quoted at all involved anywhere near 500,000 men. In fact you didn't quote any battles at all. You just talked about the campaigns and all campaigns involving all battles would near half a million men.

And this is just about the battles. Talking about Total War is to talk in equal measure regarding individual battles and overall campaigns. How exactly will the campaign map be?

I'm guessing you never played Total War before. The wars against Napoleon saw the mobilization of millions of men who fought and died all over Europe and nobody complained about Napoleon Total War in that regard. So why are you arguing otherwise?

How would a Victoria Era (Which is also possible) Total War be any different? In this case we'd have trains running around which would mean an army can travel from Moscow to Berlin within 1 turn compared to 10 turns (for example).

Well, the maps are going to need complete revamping, for one. The "France's territory in Europe consists of a single province" interpretation in Empire is completely out of the question. In fact, it will probably need to be splintered into twenty regions or something, and same deal for every other nations.

Again you've never played Total War before. When Napoleon came out the map was expanded, especially in Russia in order to properly implement the attrition factor.

But this will mean huge number of provinces, and I mean insanely huge. You think completing the normal TW goal of conquering and administrating 60 provinces is hard? Well if we go full Victorian Age there's probably thousands of provinces involved ranging from Europe to Africa to Middle East and Persia to India to South East Asia to China and Japan and America and...well you get the picture.

Nobody said it had to.

They can easily make a map that focuses just on the major theatres. Empire didn't even show East Asia at all.

And again, I must emphasize that I'm not saying that a Franco-Prussian or Civil War is impossible - it's doable, actually. But there's going be some wanking required.

The World Wars, OTOH...I don't think any campaign map will do justice.

A Victoria Era is possible. You just focus on the major theatres which would be Europe, Russia, and maybe East Asia. They did it with Empire and they can do it with Victoria as well. It is reasonable that you cannot add everything in and the Opium Wars (Which I would like to see) and American Civil Wars do not have to be in there. It could easily be a DLC.

Boshin war doesn't really lay the foundation to making a World War 1 game. By WW1 armies had completley abandoned the use of any kind of strict solid infantry field formation in combat conditions...and controlling said blocks precisely in real time is the entire basis of the total war series.

One of the major features of the Victorian Era was the introduction of the railroad which allow rapid mobilisation of armies across large areas of the map.

The Franco-Prussian war's major highlight was the Railroad. The Prussians were able to move their troops around a lot faster than the French could.

It doesn't have to be WWI.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

One of the major features of the Victorian Era was the introduction of the railroad which allow rapid mobilisation of armies across large areas of the map.

The Franco-Prussian war's major highlight was the Railroad. The Prussians were able to move their troops around a lot faster than the French could.

It doesn't have to be WWI.

YES. It doesn't...because fall of the Samurai isn't a World War 1 game. IMHO it's perfectly possible to make a total war game set in the mid 19th century in America and Europe/Middle east. You just got to be willing to funk around with the scale of battles/campaigns...just like pretty much every total war game has.


The reason a WW1 game doesn't work as Total War is because unit firepower had reached a point that units could not longer move out in the open in an integrated pattern. A formation had to split up with platoons or even squads moving independently of each other, surviving thanks to methodically sticking to individual pieces of cover.

Controlling this in real time is fine if your entire army is maybe a hundred or two men. But if you've got an army of thousands of guys? The player simply can't micro all that.

[RRW]

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

The Franco-Prussian war's major highlight was the Railroad. The Prussians were able to move their troops around a lot faster than the French could.

That's probably what they are going to do next. Probably testing the railroad power in Fall of the Samurai, to implement it in the next war (Franco-Prussian War).

[Ithekro]

Railroads also played a fair role in the American Civil War. At least to get troops to an area. After that it was marching. There is just a lot of area to cover, and there is no real chance the Confederate States will take over the United States in the war. All the can hope to do it win independence.

However because the railroads are important, things like Sherman's March become increasingly important in fighting wars. Taking out the infrustructure of making war and the country can no longer fight (effectively). The Confederate Armies could not penetrate deep enough to inflict that kind of damage on the Union, but they had close access to the Nation's Capital...as it was right across the border. The heaviest engagements were all over and around Virginia in efforts to get to one or the other's Capital.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Tiresias

I mean, who wants to play a campaign map where you basically order hundreds of thousands of troops to attack enemy trenches every turn/day just to gain a few extra meters for over four years(~365*4 turns)?

Hundreds of thousands? Per attack per turn.... I hoped the PC didn't blew up because of that.

My question... Would one be able to recruit enough soldiers at the beginning of the campaign to start the Franco Prussian war? I mean have that "full banner" to attack?Besides the computer will also try to affect your actions per turn.

Basically, the only thing that you can do in the initial start of the campaign... is go "jump inside that God damn trench , soldier!" even with only peasants at hand.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Hooves

That's probably what they are going to do next. Probably testing the railroad power in Fall of the Samurai, to implement it in the next war (Franco-Prussian War).

Nah it'd be a Victoria Total War where it'll encompass Europe, Russia and north Africa at the very least.

My question... Would one be able to recruit enough soldiers at the beginning of the campaign to start the Franco Prussian war? I mean have that "full banner" to attack?Besides the computer will also try to affect your actions per turn.

The American Civil War and Franco-Prussian war is too narrow of a scope. If anything it'll take place in the overall era and then if we want to play history then we can initiate it.

Railroads also played a fair role in the American Civil War. At least to get troops to an area. After that it was marching. There is just a lot of area to cover, and there is no real chance the Confederate States will take over the United States in the war. All the can hope to do it win independence.

However because the railroads are important, things like Sherman's March become increasingly important in fighting wars. Taking out the infrustructure of making war and the country can no longer fight (effectively). The Confederate Armies could not penetrate deep enough to inflict that kind of damage on the Union, but they had close access to the Nation's Capital...as it was right across the border. The heaviest engagements were all over and around Virginia in efforts to get to one or the other's Capital.

Well we know now that Railroads work in the same turn. An army can travel from A to B in the same turn and still have movement points left to march and fight.

[Ithekro]

Well something the size of half the continent of Europe seems like a big place.

But then there is also the Crimean War, the Mexican War, Various colonial wars and battles in Africa and Asia as well as "small" wars all over the place.


List of Wars 1800-1899
(Only the later half need apply)

[RRW]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

Well we know now that Railroads work in the same turn. An army can travel from A to B in the same turn and still have movement points left to march and fight.

doubt it it will act as ship on land

[SoldierOfDarkness]

In the trailer the army moved into the railroad and in 1-2 seconds was on the other side of the province and still had movement points.

[RRW]

cannot see it sorry.

anyway if we talking about next series i do hope the don something like crusader and tree kingdom

[SoldierOfDarkness]

1:12

"The selected army may travel to this destination"

Movement Points remaining upon arrival

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>................................. ..

Then we see an army go into the station and go from there to the next province in the same turn.

[RRW]

i see. thank you.

it will be so overpowered

[Ithekro]

I imagine that is the point of the railroad....to be overpowered.

But then trenches slow the war down so all you manage to do is move more people up to hunker down.

Tanks and airplanes will fix the problem....later.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Well that was the whole point of the railroad.

France had better rifles than Prussia but Prussia's infrastructure and railroads allowed it to deploy troops a lot faster to combat zones than France's. This rapid mobilisation gave them the edge over the French.

So yes whoever controls the railroad will have a huge advantage.