total war: where next?

[Storm Bringer]

As I'm sure many of you are aware (of the people who care to post on a thread like this), the total war series is going back to japan, with Shogun 2. Now, what i;m intrested in, is where, if you had the choice, would you like to set the next total war game after that? warring states China? the scamble for Africa? Bronze age Mesopotamia?

I think the only real limitation for the setting is pre machine guns, as they kill the close order formations that are the basis of the games engine (and even then, the way skirmishers worked in napoleon, that might not hold.)

so, where would you guys want to go?

[warty goblin]

I'd be interested in just about anything, so long as it involved a campaign that didn't destroy my mind with boredom.

[Rutskarn]

I'm going to go with Bronze Age: Total War.

I kinda hope they don't do World War II. For one thing, their mechanics aren't suited to that kind of combat, and for another thing, it might verge a bit on the tasteless side. No worse that what's already been done, I suppose.

EDIT: Plus, that wouldn't work because only one faction was interested in conquest.

[Zalgo]

I think it would be good to see a Total war game based on World War I, but of course that would mean some modifications would have to be made to the game engine / gameplay to deal with the change that automatic weapons brought to the battlefield. I don't know if it would be possible to do this but it would be an interesting idea...

[Rustic Dude]

My first option would be a proper Renaissance game, featuring the Tercios, the Lansquenetes, early gunpowder, pikemen, etc...sure, they appeared on MTW2, but I'd like to see one game centered on that.


Another Rome: Total War and one game set on the pre-Alexander Greece would be good, too.

[The_JJ]

WWI Total War would be boring as all hell.

"Start battle."

"Charge/get charged."

"Attackers die."

Next turn. Repeat.

WWII Total War might be interesting. There've been a few RTS's in the period but not many strategic layers. How would air-strikes and artillery work? Cool down timers, with the more you have within X squared on the strategic map. Some units might have a targeting ability that would make strikes within their radius more effective. Or maybe each artillery unit in you stack is represented by a few spotters.

I don't think it would end pretty, but it might be fun.

I... really liked Rome. Cavalry charges for the win. Good, fun maneuvering, cool action. The aesthetic worked for me. Bronze age mesopotamia might be good. City states, Hittite on Egyptian chariot fights. (Finally, they get to sort out their Egyptian fix!)

Warring states China might be fun. They're going to quote Sun Tzu anyway...

Scramble for Africa would be less fun. Commit atrocity. Make money. Get called into Vienna. Talk things over with Bismark. Negotiate, bluff, bluster, deal, bicker, walk off with a chunk of land. Repeat.

[BRC]

WWI era Total War could be interesting, but I wouldn't run it in the normal style. I'd scale everything down, rather than different regions of a continent, you would have different areas of a region.
Two lines of controlled territories, with each turn representing a day. You spend your turns requesting reinforcements, digging fortifications, and ordering artillery barrages.
But then it wouldn't feel much like a total war game, now would it.

[Murska]

China... would there be enough unit variety? Perhaps. Rome 2 would be interesting just for the multiplayer campaign.

[Jahkaivah]

Total War: Total War

You must raise armies of epic strategy games of a certain era and fight armies of epic strategy games of a differant era.

[BRC]

Corporate: Total War
Deploy marketing teams to seize control of areas. Break you're opponents hold on a market with an elite squadron of lawyers.

[The_JJ]

Total War: Total War

You must raise armies of epic strategy games of a certain era and fight armies of epic strategy games of a differant era.

I think the Legions at their peak could take most Medieval armies, but I gotta hand this one to Napoleon.

[BRC]

Napoleons: Total War
Napoleon Bonapart leads the armies of France against Rome, only to find it defended by a massive force under the command of Napoleon Bonapart from an alternate timeline where the Roman empire never fell. The Armies clash, only to have them both caught offguard when they are bombarded by a fleet, commanded by Napoleon Bonapart who moved to Britain as a young boy and overcoming the prejudice his peers held against a foreigner, rose to the rank of Fleet Admiral in the British Navy. He however is soon Sneak Attacked by Napoleon Bonapart who, as a young man became a pupil of the Marquis de Layfayette, following him to America where he fought in the Revolution, despite being only eight years old, this Napoleon decided to stay there, becoming a key figure in the new nation.

Meanwhile, a massive wave of thundering hooves gives everyone pause. Napoleon Khan, from a timeline where the Mongol empire never ceased expanding, is coming, and when he arrives, all hope is lost.

[Blayze]

Space (Fight the universe!). That is all.

With the award-winning expansion packs Reality (Break physics!), Time (Fight your empire's past and future selves) and Lovecraft (The enemy's army consists of Cthulhu).

[BRC]

Space (Fight the universe!). That is all.

With the award-winning expansion packs Reality (Break physics!), Time (Fight your empire's past and future selves) and Lovecraft (The enemy's army consists of Cthulhu).
I think you've stumbled upon somthing great: Author based Total War!

Orwell: Total War!
Player 1 (Oceania) Is now AT WAR with Player 2 (East Asia) and ALLIED with Player 3 (Eurasia).
Player 1 (Oceania) has always been AT WAR with Player 2 (East Asia) and ALLIED with Player 3 (Eurasia).

[Athaniar]

A Warcraft: Total War would be cool. Yes, I like Warcraftifying game series.

As for another Earthly Total War, perhaps an Ancient: Total War (might need a better name), with a wider focus than just Rome?

[toasty]

I'd take anything so long as they fix their AI. :smallfurious:

[J.Gellert]

Warhammer: Total War is an obvious choice, but I'd go with anything "fantasy". Perhaps even a Heroes III-type fantasy game; imagine, a small formation of champions slamming into a horde of troglodytes, angels chase harpies out of the sky, and then Malekith casts Meteor Shower.

[HerbieRAI]

I would have to put my vote for the fantasy related. It would give them the ability to create really differing units with some crazy abilities.

[The_JJ]

I dunno, I can get my fantasy fix elsewhere. I like TW because it's my 'see look I'ma military genius too' fix. My awesomeness is diluted, e.g. if those damn orcs won't rout because, well, they're orcs.


Favorite pastimes in various TW's:
In Rome, taunting phalanxes with point blank shots from skirmishers, using Cretan archers/Balearic slingers on anyone, but squishy light cavalry in particular. Building entire armies out of my obsolete equites and throwing them into the teeth of the barbarians.

Medieval. Bridge fights. Bridge fights with naffatun. Killing elephants with naffatun. heavy cav on peasants, and setting up ballistas while the enemy just sits there. Also, firing flaming ballista bolts into melee (actually a good bet when trying to hold a busted gate.)

Empire. Totally ignoring my navy until the last phases of the game, then building 20 heavy first rates and wrecking the Brits.

Napoleon. Mass arty. Aim for the general. Bonus points if he's out of range but you catch him by aiming for the ground in front of him. Also, mass howitzers. Impractical? Yes. Impressive? Much more so.

[13_CBS]

China... would there be enough unit variety?

Probably. A good choice of starting time might be around the mid-late 1500s, during the last days of Ming. You'd at least have the factions of...

Ming China
Joseon Korea
Tokugawa Japan
Vietnam/Vietnamese Kingdoms (divided into Mạc Dynasty territories and the Lê Dynasty territories)
Tibet
Manchus (future Qing Dynasty China)
Khoshut Khanate
Mughal India (I'm not entirely sure if the Mughals were that involved in East Asian politics, but they were at least around at the time.)

Further research into East/Southeast Asian history should reveal more. It'd also be interesting to have battles in jungles, though I think M:TW2 Americas covered that once.




Favorite pastimes in various TW's:
In Rome,

1) Play siege map in Rome as the Seleucids, with you being the defender. Buy 2 or 3 units of Silver Shield Phalanxes, and upgrade them fully.
2) Give enemy lots and lots of low quality infantry, plus exactly 1 sap point.
3) Turn off morale.
4) Place Silver Shields in phalanx mode right in front of the one and only breach in your walls.
4) Watch as 2000 enemy corpses cover a 20 square foot, while you suffer a maximum of 3 casualties.

You haven't seen a meat grinder until you've seen an elite phalanx holding a choke point against overwhelming numbers.

[Trixie]

I think it would be good to see a Total war game based on World War I, but of course that would mean some modifications would have to be made to the game engine / gameplay to deal with the change that automatic weapons brought to the battlefield. I don't know if it would be possible to do this but it would be an interesting idea...

This.


WWI Total War would be boring as all hell.

Contrary to popular belief, WWI was more than fighting in France/Italy between 1915-1917.

The rest was a war of maneuver as much as WWII was, if not more in some places.


Scramble for Africa would be less fun. Commit atrocity. Make money. Get called into Vienna. Talk things over with Bismark. Negotiate, bluff, bluster, deal, bicker, walk off with a chunk of land.

Um, Bismark in Vienna? How? :smallconfused:


I think the Legions at their peak could take most Medieval armies, but I gotta hand this one to Napoleon.

Medieval army = massed knight charge.

Or longbowmen.

Outside these two units, maybe, if Romans could figure how to defeat castles and artillery. But, they did have engineer corps.

[toasty]

Medieval army = massed knight charge.

Or longbowmen.

Outside these two units, maybe, if Romans could figure how to defeat castles and artillery. But, they did have engineer corps.

Longbowmen would be a problem, but I have faith that the well trained, professional infantry-based Roman Army could adapt to the Calvary Charges of Medieval Knights.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'm going to go with Bronze Age: Total War.

That would be interesting...

WWI: Total War exists. It's called Diplomacy. ;)

Renaissance: Total War would be interesting. What I'd really be interested to see is an American War for Independence version. 1776: Total War or something like that. Main problem is the factions. New World: Total War would be interesting, like the Total War analogue to Colonization.

[J.Gellert]

Actually, the Romans did fight a medieval-style army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae), and lost.

The result? They "stole" the cataphract, and the Eastern Roman Empire proceeded with both cataphracts and horse archers. These kind of battles are the reason that heavy cavalry was, to the Byzantines, what legionnaires had been to the earlier empire.

Roman infantry worked in forests, against barbarians, but it changed for a reason. It evolved.

[13_CBS]

Actually, the Romans did fight a medieval-style army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae), and lost.

I'm...not sure if horse archers would really be a part of your average Medieval Western European army. :smallconfused: Also, the Romans IIRC went on to sack the Parthian capitol several times.

[The_JJ]

Um, Bismark in Vienna? How? :smallconfused:


Berlin. Sorry. Berlin Confrence. Most of the Scramble for Africa was fought in the staterooms and alliance brokering on the Continent. As Bismark put it:

"Your map of Africa is really quite nice. But my map of Africa lies in Europe. Here is Russia, and here... is France, and we're in the middle — that's my map of Africa."



Medieval army = massed knight charge.

Or longbowmen.

Outside these two units, maybe, if Romans could figure how to defeat castles and artillery. But, they did have engineer corps.

Re massed knight charge: well yes, but these had an alarming tendency to not always work, for a variety of reasons, but one sure obstacle was always a professional, well trained, or at least high morale infantry core that could hold the line. Swiss did it well, Scots did it well. They'd need pole arms, but the Romans at their peak were very adaptable and very professional.

Re Longbows: certainly a larger issue. Turtle up and close to melee range though, and I think the Romans have it.

And the Romans were good at sieges. Battle of Alesia for instance. Remember, if you're actually storming the castle, you're doing it wrong.

Personally I think the best 'proof' of Roman supremacy lies in the Battle of Cannae. They can be on the loosing side of the most lopsided, brilliant battle in history and still win the war.

[Trixie]

Longbowmen would be a problem, but I have faith that the well trained, professional infantry-based Roman Army could adapt to the Calvary Charges of Medieval Knights.

Cavalry? With what, exactly?

No amount of discipline will let you win when all you have is two short javelins, short sword, and (maybe, in later times) a sword. Armored cavalry will simple trample you into the ground. Unless it's commander will royally screw up.

Very early legion with Triarii possessing long spears might have done something. Or, one fighting from fortified camp. In the field? Nope.


Actually, the Romans did fight a medieval-style army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae), and lost.

Cataphract was nowhere near as well armed and armored as late armored heavy cavalry, though.

Knights (and later hussars) were so terrifying for a reason - they could took on 5-10 times their number and win, virtually every time, against enemy who knew what they will do.

Only good commanders with excellent forces who had time to prepare prevailed against them. And even among these, pretty much always only the leaders of current best military power in Europe.

Roman generals were good, but they simply would lose their army unless someone detailed their enemy to them in some way, and given them appropriate weapons and training.

[13_CBS]

Cataphract was nowhere near as well armed and armored as late armored heavy cavalry, though.

Late armored cavalry, perhaps, but then one could argue that said cavalry were technically Early Modern than Medieval. >.>

Also, to the legionnaires' credit, they weren't completely helpless against heavy cavalry. The Battle of Nisibis mentions a light infantry screen dropping caltrops as Parthian cavalry drew near, badly disrupting the Parthian charge. Also, while shortswordsmen aren't ideal for fighting cavalry, Roman legionnaires at least had large shields, heavy armor, and discipline, which are the best defenses against heavy cavalry aside from a good row of spears.

[J.Gellert]

Cataphract was nowhere near as well armed and armored as late armored heavy cavalry, though.

Weapons weren't as advanced back in Roman times either - didn't have morningstars, or zweihanders. And horse armor was normal for cataphracts, though rarely seen later on.

Still, yes, it goes to show how badly an "iconic" Roman army would be curbstomped by late-medieval knights in full gothic plate. But that's a millenia-long gap in history and weapon advances...

[13_CBS]

Still, yes, it goes to show how badly an "iconic" Roman army would be curbstomped by late-medieval knights in full gothic plate. But that's a millenia-long gap in history and weapon advances...

If we're talking about "full gothic plate" heavy cavalry, then we're also starting to get into things like early gunpowder weaponry, which will put the Romans at a severe disadvantage.

Actually, an interesting thought question; how would an early Imperial Roman army incorporate gunpowder into its army if it somehow had access to it?

[SurlySeraph]

I'd like one going from the Archaic Period in Greece (around 800 BC) up through the Hellenistic Period, focused on the Mediterranean world although I certainly wouldn't mind making large amounts of Europe, Asia, and Africa available. In other words, from the start of when we have a pretty good sense of what was going on historically up until shortly before Rome started taking everything over.

A worldwide game involving events that are known but not historically recorded, i.e. the Polynesian Expansion, could be a lot of fun. But the historical accuracy of the Total War series (not to be confused with the Total War in my sig) is what I love most about it, and you couldn't really have great historical accuracy or a wide range of buildings and units in Prehistory Total War.


Actually, an interesting thought question; how would an early Imperial Roman army incorporate gunpowder into its army if it somehow had access to it?

Probably with initial grumbling about the many advantages of pilums to such silly devices, then insistence that archer auxiliaries could do anything gunners could faster and cheaper, then provisional use of them against easily frightened barbarians, increasing more and more as gunpowder proved itself effective until it became near-standard.

[13_CBS]

But the historical accuracy of the Total War series (not to be confused with the Total War in my sig) is what I love most about it, and you couldn't really have great historical accuracy or a wide range of buildings and units in Prehistory Total War.

If you like historical accuracy, then may I suggest to you the Europa Barbarorum (http://www.europabarbarorum.com/) mod? It has a reputation for being even more historically accurate than Rome Total War.

[The_JJ]

Cavalry? With what, exactly?

No amount of discipline will let you win when all you have is two short javelins, short sword, and (maybe, in later times) a sword. Armored cavalry will simple trample you into the ground. Unless it's commander will royally screw up.

Very early legion with Triarii possessing long spears might have done something. Or, one fighting from fortified camp. In the field? Nope.

Cataphract was nowhere near as well armed and armored as late armored heavy cavalry, though.

Knights (and later hussars) were so terrifying for a reason - they could took on 5-10 times their number and win, virtually every time, against enemy who knew what they will do.

Except for those times when they failed to do so. Agincourt, Bannockburn, Laupen. Yeah, we're talking polearm users here but...



Only good commanders with excellent forces who had time to prepare prevailed against them. And even among these, pretty much always only the leaders of current best military power in Europe.

Roman generals were good, but they simply would lose their army unless someone detailed their enemy to them in some way, and given them appropriate weapons and training.

And they quite often did. They lost three to Hannibal... and they won the war. This was before the real start of the empire. They could 'afford' to lose a few battles to figure the knights out, and they actually had a terrifying manpower pool to draw on. Trained knights in fitted plate are a limited resource. In one battle Rome lost more than four times the total Henry V saw fit to bring to reclaim France.

Also, Legionaries with musket= terrifying thought. :smalleek:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Also, Legionaries with musket= terrifying thought. :smalleek:

There's a fantasy mod for Medieval with them. It is scary. Especially when you see Legionaries with muskets fighting Uruk-hai. :smallcool:

[Derthric]

I would love to see an American Civil War: Total War. Playing factions around north america including Mexican Guerillas fighting Maximillian, Maximilian's french allies, the British Empire in Canada, Confederates, the Union, even slice off parts of the planes for the Native Nations as well. Trade theaters would work great with reb commerce raiders. Its a much much smaller time frame than previous total wars main campaigns but I think it would be fun as the last Napoleonic tactics war and the first modern war.

I remember reading something somewhere about one of the people from creative assembly splitting off to make what would effectively be Space: Total War. Can't really remember the details at all though so it might have been a massive hallucination.

[warty goblin]

Medieval army = massed knight charge.

Or longbowmen.

Outside these two units, maybe, if Romans could figure how to defeat castles and artillery. But, they did have engineer corps.

The superiority of 13th or 14th century horse is interesting. Consider for instance how horribly Roman legions got their asses kicked throughout the Second Punic War by Hannibal's better led and qualitatively superior cavalry. Now granted the shock charge of medieval heavy horse is about as far from Numidian light cavalry as it is possible to be and still involve equines, but the point remains that the Legions were highly susceptible to being seriously abused by an enemy with better mounted troops and the imagination to use them.

But I think the real killer here is that by the middle to late middle ages armor technology vastly exceeded what the Romans fielded. I find it highly unlikely that a gladius or pilum would prove very effective against plate, while the medieval arsenal would work just fine against what the Romans could bring to bear.

[13_CBS]

But I think the real killer here is that by the middle to late middle ages armor technology vastly exceeded what the Romans fielded. I find it highly unlikely that a gladius or pilum would prove very effective against plate, while the medieval arsenal would work just fine against what the Romans could bring to bear.

But there is the issue of numbers. How large were plate harness heavy cavalry contingents in Western European battles?

Also, assuming that late medieval/early modern heavy cavalry were impetuous and undisciplined, then the Romans at least have a chance at luring away the heavy cavalry while the infantry clash (though what the Romans could do against the pike-shot combination would be interesting to see).

[warty goblin]

But there is the issue of numbers. How large were plate harness heavy cavalry contingents in Western European battles?

Heavy horse wasn't huge in number, but it didn't need to be. It's still vastly more maneuverable than infantry, and thanks to really heavy armor and weapons, topped off by a decade or more of training, can seriously screw up whatever they feel like under most circumstances. Infantry in full, or near full, plate however was fairly ubiquitous. By the later parts of the middle ages iron and steel had fallen vastly in price, and the constant warfare had created a dedicated mercenary class whose only marketable skill was fighting and all of whose capital was tied up in their equipment.


Also, assuming that late medieval/early modern heavy cavalry were impetuous and undisciplined, then the Romans at least have a chance at luring away the heavy cavalry while the infantry clash (though what the Romans could do against the pike-shot combination would be interesting to see).
But again, by the time you hit 1400, you're looking at infantry forces clad head to foot in steel armor and armed with armor piercing weapons. Not only that, but the metal used probably was higher quality as well. Roman legionaries were, I believe, taught to stab at their enemy's torsos or else cut at limbs to disable and then thrust to chest or stomach. Neither of these will work very well against somebody with steel strapped to them all over. The legionary by contrast is wearing armor that does, by Medieval standards, a poor job of protecting the neck, the arms, the armpits, the groin, and the legs.

The bottom line is this: if massed infantry with shields was effective against massed infantry in heavy armor with pole arms, it would have shown up a whole lot more. But after heavy horse began to give way to infantry again, it was unshielded infantry.

[J.Gellert]

Anyway, this is drifting off-topic, so I'll just add that I would like to see a Dark Ages: Total War. Rome only touched it with Barbarian Invasion, and Medieval 2 started immediately after that. But to me, that's one of the most interesting eras of history. Give me a 395 AD - 1081 AD Total War :smalltongue:

You still have "iconic" barbarians, and not the plate-armored Vikings of Medieval 2; you have Persians; old-style Romans; and it's the age of some of the most powerful people in history, like Justinian and Charlemagne.

[Eldan]

Medieval 1: Viking Invasion had dark age britain... that was a pretty cool campaign. Vikings, Mercia, Saxons, Northumbria, Picts, Wales, Scots, the Irish... I had a lot of fun there with armies consisting almost exclusively of celtic warriors and berserkers. It's why the world language today is pictish, after all.

[Cheesegear]

Khan: Total War.

I'd play it.

[Blayze]

On the subject of author-related Total War games...

Blyton: Total War.

[Ethdred]

On the subject of author-related Total War games...

Blyton: Total War.

Yes, this! About time the Famous Five faced off against the Secret Seven.

On a more serious note



Except for those times when they failed to do so. Agincourt, Bannockburn, Laupen. Yeah, we're talking polearm users here but...


Agincourt, polearms? I don't think so.

All those claiming the superiority of medieval cavalry over the classic legionnaire seem to be ignoring the Roman army's constant ability to innovate. They stole lots of ideas from their enemies, and also were very willing to hire auxiliaries from amongst their subject people (and others). If they had been faced with heavily armoured cavalry that their existing formations couldn't deal with, I think it would have taken precisely one defeat for them to start saying 'Hey, remember those Greeks guys we beat a while back. They were pretty handy with spears, let's hire a few of them and put them at the front of our cohorts.'

[Brother Oni]

All those claiming the superiority of medieval cavalry over the classic legionnaire seem to be ignoring the Roman army's constant ability to innovate. They stole lots of ideas from their enemies, and also were very willing to hire auxiliaries from amongst their subject people (and others).

An amusing anecdote to how well the Romans took to innovation: when faced with elephant cavalry, the Romans thought long and hard about how to beat them. They soon discovered that elephants didn't like small animals and they didn't like fire and soon realised that the only thing that they probably hated more than small animals and fire were small animals on fire.
Then one bright spark figured out that the best animal to launch from a catapult was a pig, so the Romans started launching greased up flaming pigs at the elephants and watched in glee as they trampled back through the enemy lines.

The fact that somebody must have launched various small animals from a catapult in order to work out which flew best and survived the impact is what amuses me the most. :smallbiggrin:

That said, I'm very curious to how the Romans would deal with the Mongols, given their emphasis on cavalry, both heavy and archers.

[J.Gellert]

Well, it's funny how everyone writes like everyone's knowledgeable about Roman armies, but you can't make blanket statements about them, really.

Roman armies span a time period from 509 BC to 1453 AD and they underwent many, many reforms during that time. They also fought many and very varied enemies.

You probably mean "Roman Republican armies" but even that is not a unified idea. Early Roman Republican armies actually fought in phalanxes. The Polybian army fought in lines (the triarii come from this time). The importance of heavy cavalry grew gradually, until the cataphract replaced infantry as the core of the army. And these cataphracts were later assisted by horse archers.

One can't really talk about "Romans" without being more specific, unless you state the two obvious (and unchanging) things: Roman armies were adaptable, and their effectiveness depended primarily on the intelligence of their commanders.

[warty goblin]

Agincourt, polearms? I don't think so.

The majority of the English men-at-arms were armed with pole weapons, as was standard for the period. The arrowstorms proved very effective at driving the French heavy horse from the field, but failed to halt the pole arm wielding heavy foot, who were cut to pieces basically due to the mud.


All those claiming the superiority of medieval cavalry over the classic legionnaire seem to be ignoring the Roman army's constant ability to innovate. They stole lots of ideas from their enemies, and also were very willing to hire auxiliaries from amongst their subject people (and others). If they had been faced with heavily armoured cavalry that their existing formations couldn't deal with, I think it would have taken precisely one defeat for them to start saying 'Hey, remember those Greeks guys we beat a while back. They were pretty handy with spears, let's hire a few of them and put them at the front of our cohorts.'

There's a reason the phalanx disappeared from the battlefield; it is very effective in one direction, only one direction, and alters direction very badly. This was the great innovation of the shiltron and the Swiss pike square, it still presents a very dense field of spearpoints but does so at all angles and retains a fair amount of mobility.

Look at it this way, high medieval shock cavalry was made possible by a large number of technological advantages that the Romans simply did not have. The stirrup is one of these, and the easiest to copy. But just as key is the breeding of powerful new war horses and the economic basis required to create the heavy armor for both mount and rider.

[Jonzac]

A Warcraft: Total War would be cool. Yes, I like Warcraftifying game series.

As for another Earthly Total War, perhaps an Ancient: Total War (might need a better name), with a wider focus than just Rome?


http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=175545

Its close. A Middle Earth mod for Rome:Total War Barbarian Invation exe.

[Ranielle]

My Place: Total War

The ultimate dating sim incorporating an AI that s(t)imulates Sun Tzu.

[Ethdred]

The majority of the English men-at-arms were armed with pole weapons, as was standard for the period.

Very possibly, but they didn't form the majority of the English army, and certainly not the most effective bit.


The arrowstorms proved very effective at driving the French heavy horse from the field, but failed to halt the pole arm wielding heavy foot, who were cut to pieces basically due to the mud.

We were just talking about taking on horses though. But the longbowmen also made a major contribution to the cutting to pieces - once they had run out of arrows, they jumped into the melee and being much more nimble, and armed with short weapons, were pretty ruthless at winkling out the weak points in the men-at-arms' armour. Remember, a major factor in the English success was the ground, which forced the French to bunch together, making pole arms much less useful.

[13_CBS]

There's a reason the phalanx disappeared from the battlefield; it is very effective in one direction, only one direction, and alters direction very badly. This was the great innovation of the shiltron and the Swiss pike square, it still presents a very dense field of spearpoints but does so at all angles and retains a fair amount of mobility.

Look at it this way, high medieval shock cavalry was made possible by a large number of technological advantages that the Romans simply did not have. The stirrup is one of these, and the easiest to copy. But just as key is the breeding of powerful new war horses and the economic basis required to create the heavy armor for both mount and rider.

Now I'm interested in thinking about ways an early Imperial Roman legion could have a chance at defeating an early modern Western European army. Not to say that the Romans are likely to win--I'm now quite convinced that the advantage (in equipment, at least) is almost entirely on the side of the early modern Europeans. Nonetheless, what sort of tactics could a Roman legion use to try to defeat such an army? (Aside from, of course, simply adapting early modern arms, technology, and horses.)

[Storm Bringer]

Now I'm interested in thinking about ways an early Imperial Roman legion could have a chance at defeating an early modern Western European army. Not to say that the Romans are likely to win--I'm now quite convinced that the advantage (in equipment, at least) is almost entirely on the side of the early modern Europeans. Nonetheless, what sort of tactics could a Roman legion use to try to defeat such an army? (Aside from, of course, simply adapting early modern arms, technology, and horses.)

lure into ambush/pass/other location where the knights power is netuered, then surround and grind. Roman legions have much greater disapline/staying power/"morale" than medival men at arms, and I think that if they can sieze the moral high ground, (by surrounding and spreading panic in a ambushed unit caught by suprise), then they can overcome equipment problems and make the medieval guys break.

in an open field battle? not so sure. use steaks or other field fortifications to break up incoming charges, then try to outflank the foot troops and panic them agian. I aggree that classic legionary equipment is going to have a rough tme defeating a man in full or half plate, but if they can learn some variant of the "pin then stab at gaps" techiques, then they might have a chance.

[Jonzac]

Scorpions, ballista. Roman's were fond of seige engines.

Also, the number of heavily armored "knights" was always low. The Roman's main advantages were strategic and less "tactical". The ability to move armies more quickly than their medieval counterparts. The ability to combine more legions...and if were having fantasy discussions, the Romans had an entire empire to draw men, material and other mercs from. One counter to the heavy mounted knight could easily be mounted archers...those big horses were still vernerable to arrows...even with barding.

Eastern cataphracts could easily be brought in to assist as merc. Also, the Romans could easily field more TRAINED and equiped legions than any medieval king could find.

Like many of Rome's enemies...they may have tactical advantages, but Rome's STRATEGIC advantages always allowed them to win the campaigns (in early to middle Rome timeline)

[warty goblin]

Scorpions, ballista. Roman's were fond of seige engines.

Also, the number of heavily armored "knights" was always low. The Roman's main advantages were strategic and less "tactical". The ability to move armies more quickly than their medieval counterparts. The ability to combine more legions...and if were having fantasy discussions, the Romans had an entire empire to draw men, material and other mercs from. One counter to the heavy mounted knight could easily be mounted archers...those big horses were still vernerable to arrows...even with barding.

Eastern cataphracts could easily be brought in to assist as merc. Also, the Romans could easily field more TRAINED and equiped legions than any medieval king could find.

Like many of Rome's enemies...they may have tactical advantages, but Rome's STRATEGIC advantages always allowed them to win the campaigns (in early to middle Rome timeline)

You do realize that by the height of the middle ages sieges were one of the predominant forms of warfare, and involved siege engines the Romans never even thought of, right?

As for small numbers of knights, armies with ten or twenty thousand fairly heavily armored soldiers were not that uncommon.

[The_JJ]

You do realize that by the height of the middle ages sieges were one of the predominant forms of warfare, and involved siege engines the Romans never even thought of, right?

As for small numbers of knights, armies with ten or twenty thousand fairly heavily armored soldiers were not that uncommon.

Right, and by conservative estimates the Roman legions lost about forty thousand at Cannae, after several nearly as bad battles, and went on to win the war handily. This is pre-Empire.

Also, relief armies and better supply. This is how you defend/besiege a castle. Forget engines.

[Murska]

Well yeah, if Romans are supposed to actually attack an extremely strong late medieval castle(as opposed to besieging it and waiting it out, like anyone sane would do) they wouldn't fare too well. But, well, duh.

[Vitruviansquid]

Imo, Fantasy: Total War would be amazing.

The one thing I've always hated about the Total War series was how their mechanics worked out great for combined arms armies, but they keep trying to shoe-horn factions into emphasizing a single role because that's what they were supposedly like, historically. This, combined with how uniform units within a role tended to be in their games made combats play out more or less the same for long stretches of time, as you fight a string of battles against a single enemy nation you wanted to conquer.

If they untied the game's armies from historical armies (which concentrated more on winning wars than being fun to command >_>), and had some better ways of differentiating one heavy infantry from the next (as in, some of them aren't human, some have magical effects, etc), I think it'd give the game a lot more variety and longevity.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The silly thing with thinking about whether the Roman army would fare well against a Feudal army, is that there is no way that, even if the Western Empire had survived, you would ever have a Legion style army. By the time that the WRE fell, the army had been changed irrevocably from the Imperial Legions, and instead was in a completely different system. When you look at the evolution of the ERE armies, you can see that it was Roman inguinity that kept them alive, constantly changing the form of their army to suite the political and military surroundings.

[J.Gellert]

Imo, Fantasy: Total War would be amazing.

The one thing I've always hated about the Total War series was how their mechanics worked out great for combined arms armies, but they keep trying to shoe-horn factions into emphasizing a single role because that's what they were supposedly like, historically. This, combined with how uniform units within a role tended to be in their games made combats play out more or less the same for long stretches of time, as you fight a string of battles against a single enemy nation you wanted to conquer.

If they untied the game's armies from historical armies (which concentrated more on winning wars than being fun to command >_>), and had some better ways of differentiating one heavy infantry from the next (as in, some of them aren't human, some have magical effects, etc), I think it'd give the game a lot more variety and longevity.

Exactly! Besides, magic has so much tactical fun that's really unexplored in most games- Animate Dead on that mass of corpses, Wall of Fire to stop or divert that charging cavalry, Summoning new forces, Control Weather to fight enemy archers...

Actually, King Arthur - The Roleplaying Wargame is doing that last one perfectly. It's not a perfect game, but it's awesome in its own right... Too bad it's not as moddable as Rome.

[RationalGoblin]

Napoleons: Total War
Napoleon Bonapart leads the armies of France against Rome, only to find it defended by a massive force under the command of Napoleon Bonapart from an alternate timeline where the Roman empire never fell. The Armies clash, only to have them both caught offguard when they are bombarded by a fleet, commanded by Napoleon Bonapart who moved to Britain as a young boy and overcoming the prejudice his peers held against a foreigner, rose to the rank of Fleet Admiral in the British Navy. He however is soon Sneak Attacked by Napoleon Bonapart who, as a young man became a pupil of the Marquis de Layfayette, following him to America where he fought in the Revolution, despite being only eight years old, this Napoleon decided to stay there, becoming a key figure in the new nation.

Meanwhile, a massive wave of thundering hooves gives everyone pause. Napoleon Khan, from a timeline where the Mongol empire never ceased expanding, is coming, and when he arrives, all hope is lost.

This is the best option.

This is the ONLY option! :smallbiggrin:

[An Enemy Spy]

Total War: Total War

You must raise armies of epic strategy games of a certain era and fight armies of epic strategy games of a differant era.

There needs to be a game where you have modern troops go back in time and fight in Historical battles. I'd like to see those dirty redcoats take Bunker Hill while facing a line of Abrahm tanks!

[BRC]

This is the best option.

This is the ONLY option! :smallbiggrin:
Fun Fact: Shortly after writing this, I learned that Napoleon could very easily have grown up British. His father was a follower of a Coriscan patriot who was defeated and fled to Britain. His father could have followed, buy decided to stay in Corsica.
But yeah, Napoleons Total War should happen.

[Talkkno]

There needs to be a game where you have modern troops go back in time and fight in Historical battles. I'd like to see those dirty redcoats take Bunker Hill while facing a line of Abrahm tanks!
Like in Heroscape?:smallamused: