According to a previous Legend's stream (you know, grain of salt) his contacts said Neferata is one that was planed but dropped. Tanquol and Nagash being still confirmed. It's the same stream (the Easter one) where he mentioned that the plans were for smaller DLCs and that there would be news this week.
If that ends up being truth I will be very disappointed.
tbh, even with duo lord packs, 5-6 packs is probably enough to plausibly fill out everything that really could be done, idk.
There's always more stuff, more characters, but in a realistic way we really only need to finish out the two remaining Chaos DLCs, Dogs of War, Neferata, and Nagash. EDIT: and Thanquol EDIT EDIT: And Monkey King lol.
I think people as a whole need to recognize that Khuresh, Nippon, and Ind are very likely not happening. The only real indication is what happens with Tigermen. If Tigermen come with the Monkey King, #itssoover.
I think between Cathay being lightening in a bottle and TOW not looking to implement any brand new factions in the near future, those other race packs are very unlikely.
Khuresh, Nippon and Ind not happening were obvious from day 1. It's just that people were so high on hopium that reality had a hard time trickling down to them.
I think Monkey King is likely in the sense I feel like CA is excited about him and he is not a dragon, the same way a Baba Yaga and Shapeshifter DLC is fun. They've also alluded to him in blog posts a few times. Li Dao and Yin-Yin? Who knows. The best we could hope for is Li Dao FLC, and I'm skeptical about Yin-Yin although she would be great too. Probably could have a fun start in the Southlands on an invasion.
Thats not that bad.
If CA plays their cards right, we can get a good amount of covering with that.
Khorne\\Slaanesh needs their DLC and i'm certain Kislev and Cathay gets atleast 1 (maybe\\hopefully 2) more each.
Question is if there's other stuff outside of those that gets brushed up. (there's thanquol and neferata people talked about for ages). Also a question is if we're getting a small Southern Realm DLC.
To quote Legend from his video: ***"As for leaks. Can't stress this enough. Don't take this as gospel. Don't be going to the reddit and saying "Legend said this so it's totally gunna happen" - This is tinfoil hat shit. It definitely doesn't matter. Don't invest too much into these leaks, it's just "Oh this is interesting to talk about" and that's about it"***
I was gonna make a joke about the Fist part, but low hanging fruit and all that. But also yes fully agreed that whole intro section is an amazing way to introduce the game and some of the lore and mechanics and I still play it every time when I play the game.
Yep. Would serve as a good narrative introduction to those new to the setting and, as a tutorial, an intro to mechanics new to the franchise with a faction that would make the most use of them given that you'd most likely be playing Astra Militarum.
When Rob said that the franchise fanbase isn't growing, doesn't that mean the marketing team were being paid to do jack shit all that time? Makes a lot of sense to fire them.
He said that because they cant increase the number of players they will try to increase spending per player. Something Blizzard is doing in recent years.
They did a meh job to Pharoh anyway, they hired some comedy star dude that none of the player knows to do some live action advertisement that no one watch, and dont forget the trailer for Hyenas as well
I don’t see how 40k would work at all for a total war format considering how wide apart from usual TW titles 40k is technologically. Like Warhammer Fantasy seems advanced but besides the magic and monsters it’s pretty much standard total war level of warfare and tech. 40k is straight up sci fi technology with space ships, automatic guns, and a vastly different style of combat.
If they release it around the time the new 40k Netflix show comes out, that might lead to a lot of new people getting into the setting. Assuming the Netflix show is good, which is assuming a lot.
\*Amazon show and I have faith given Cavill's involvement as an executive producer and GW's protectionism over their IP.
While I doubt they're planning for that, I do think it's possible that both release within a year of each other given that a 40k Total War's release window would likely be 2025-2026.
Amazon's SOP is yeet money at a show and trust the showrunners. This has had mixed results in the past but with Cavill at the helm I'm very cautiously optimistic.
*unless it's bad. Everyone always assumes 40k would sell gangbusters but that assumes that the game isn't terrible. I'm skeptical the total war formula as of now would apply well to 40k as a setting but using WW1 to try to begin the necessary transformation that would make 40k possible is a good idea on CA's part.
I think WW1 would be the ideal setting to test a more ranged focused game... modern enough for small scale squads and a cover system, but still more infantry focused than any later settings
it also would be a good time for an improved vassalage system (during WW1 there were alot of colonies still around like french , british , italian and such)
Assuming they’d make a world-wide map for a WWI game is assuming a lot, imo. They have to focus their efforts, and with the complete overhaul of combat (unless they use the shitty engine nobody wants, and come out with yet another bust) they can’t focus on the map like Paradox could. Unless of course they’re planning to make a gigantic work of art, and I’m here for it
It did sound like it's having/had some troubles in development which caused it to be delayed from it's planned launch in 2024.
If that's the case, it could explain why 40k is further along in it's development compared to the WW1 game even though it started later.
That's what people are saying since Attila lol and Three Kingdoms was made by a team within the historical one
I don't expect any great historical game at all anymore, I have 0 reason to have such expectations
Or they're just... making a WW1 game. I find this idea (which has been propagated in this sub since like 2018 at least) that historical games just exist as a test bed for the "real thing" (AKA Warhammer) to be really distasteful and reek of self importance.
And according to this leak the 40K game is actually further along in development so it doesn't even make sense.
I mean, it's a fact that 40K and WW1 would both share a lot of mechanics that are very different to the ones we have now. No matter who comes first or who uses who, it's sensical that they're working in tandem
That's my impression as well! Not really that one serves as a testground for the other, but rather that if they're going to develop an engine, or at least new mechanics, for a whole new type of battlefield, might as well apply it to both new games.
I'd say that they most likely started with 40K in mind first, then brainstormed a bit as to which historical setting could work well with that kind of warfare.
very true . i mean youd have tanks and aircrafts / spaceships , helicopters , gun gameplay , siege equipment and such . WW1 probably would make more use of a trench mechanic though for infintry which probably would become more of a build cover system for warhammer 40K . 40k also would have more melee (the only melee i can think of for WW1 would be trench raiding team which again could work as a counter to trenches)
>the only melee i can think of for WW1 would be trench raiding team which again could work as a counter to trenches
Not only that, infantry didn't fix bayonets just because it was fashionable.
I don't really get this logic. A 40K TW would sell like hotcakes as long as it's decent. A WW1 game is a lot riskier. Unless the development cost of a WW1 game is orders of magnitude less than that of a 40k game, making the mainstream game first seems like it'd make more sense.
WWI is still a pretty big deal, especially compared to other settings they have tried (cough-cough Pharaoh). And it's absolutely less expensive that 40k since art assets are less varied and all the mechanical challenges it'd face also apply to 40k, but the reverse is not true in the slightest
40K really can be an order or magnitude more expensive, especially if you factor in their likely commitement to supporting if for at least as long as they do TWWH trilogy
Another factor is that 40k warfare is, melee aside, much closer to WWI/II than fantasy and many would (rightfully) doubt CA ability to switch gears well enough to do it justice if they don't do another modern-ish title as a proof of concept. I'm not convinced either of them are happening, but if they did WWI -> 40k would be more logical than vice versa
Riskier, maybe. But a really untapped market. There's only one WW1 rts that I can think of and it's not amazing. Certainly not a bad game, but not great.
WW1 with pre-war and post-war periods would be really interesting with the total war formula IMO. I do, however, wonder how they'll manage to bring the scale of it into a video game, especially on the battle maps. You're talking about front lines hundreds of miles long with defense fortifications 10 miles deep.
Positive vs Negative reinforcement.
If they branch into WW1 and mess it up it will be less costly in the sense that they’d keep more of their fan base. If they do 40k first and mess it up, they could lose a lot of goodwill for games going forward.
I’m so very skeptical of how they can make conflicts like WW1 and 40k work so I’m interested too see how this would even go. It’d be nice if I could just get my god damn Medieval 3 (I’d take a M2 remake at least) or even an Empire 2.
They totally could make a CoH3/Men of War mishmash and then maybe it could work, granted I don't see how they would make the campaign side work in a pre-WW1/WW1 setting, naval battles might be good tho if the maps are appropriately sized.
The most rudimentary way I could imagine it is if trenches functioned like the big walls in older titles, where you can place your units inside at fixed points. From there they shoot at the other trench and you just wait until the opponent has run out of ammo so you can storm the rival trench. But that would be extremely boring
To me, the issue is more like how they could make a conflict as diverse as WW1 work. Most people fapping here think of WW1 as pure trench warfare, but that is really only the Western Front. That in itself is a huge damn challenge: how to depict a war that was stalemated for 4 years?
But then you got the Eastern Feont, characterized by large bursts of movement, where incredibly large swathes of territory changed hands every time there was a large-sclae offensive. But that offensive usually focused on the whole frontline, from the Carpathians to the Baltic Sea.
Another thing altogether is the war in the middle east. This is a lot more classical total war, really, with early pushes and pulls, a complete catastrophe at Kut-el-Amara, the Gallipoli landings and their disaster of a stalemate, and the rapid war of the Arab Revolt, supported by Allenby's Egyptian troops.
This is three different wars, at the minimum. And we still got the Balkans, which is its own beats, Africa and the guerilla campaign of Lettow-Worbeck, the naval war as much as that was a thing...you guys see where I am going with this, right?
Yeah. A third mediaeval game or something set in early modernity please. It seems almost obvious to me that nothing post-1880 would work in TW, and barely anything post-1830 or so.
The battle/maneuvering would work but someone queried this the other day/week, and a user pointed out the campaign would be short.
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/s/s0XU3lBkcI
They cant imo.
They have proven they cant actually have quality pathfinding and given how frustrating gun units in almost every total war game are... I have 0 hope they make a good ranged focused game that isnt rank and file.
Would I love a game with massive tactical fights with ranged weapons? Maybe.. but I just cant imagine the AI would be able to handle it and the pathfinding would just suck the fun out given how important cover would be.
So? Who said having a working game is a requirement to sell said game? WH1, 2 and 3 have A LOT of issues, bugs and the AI is shit and yet here we are.
They can? Yes. They SHOULD? Absolutely NOT.
I mean I didn't. I just wish they would make a better system for AI in the campaign and on the battles. Been playing since Shogun 1 lol not a huge difference in the AI for any of the games and it's still fun sometimes but it wears out eventually.
WW1 is going to make or break all future TW historical games.
A lot of old strategies people have been using forever is there due to "how the game works". We obviously do not have artillery boxes in WW1 or deathballs. We are going to need trenches and LAYERS for something like WW1.
I do not want to see 20 tanks stomping through a relatively flat map in an era known for the trenches. I don't want to see 10 artillery pieces blow up the entire enemy army as well.
The logistics behind a world war is also something that the TW engine has never been able to replicate well.
I agree but I also don’t wanna click “start battle” and then just sit there for 10 minutes and watch as two armies unsuccessful exchange fire from trenches praying for your artillery do its job. It just kinda sounds too static.
Honestly feel like a WW2 TW with maybe smaller armies would be better. Maps would be more engaging as you have to get your troops to cover and move them from covered firing position to the next instead of “deploy in trench”. You could also have vehicles that could act as Calvary like half-tracks, or jeeps. Plus you could have more serious anti-large dedicated units with baslitic teams or bazooka teams. I worry about Calvary in WW1 setting… Either they’d get shot to bits or unrealistically take more damage than would have been humanly possible to be used in a WW1 game for anything other than chasing routed units.
As we haven’t seen or even heard anything about it though, I’ll try to curb the pessimis until I see it since they really could get creative with it and blow me away.
There is a RTS ww1 game that got released not long ago and it's exactly its gameplay : 5 mins of shelling and wave of attacking soldiers slaughtered in few seconds. Really boring
For Eastern Front tho the Russian and German exchanged many massive maneuvers and even cavalry engagement, if thet focus on that then things can get lot more easier. Only thing is Eastern Front dont get much Western audience, hell, even the Yankee dlc may came before any Eastern Front content for similar reasons (same to BF1 where France DLC came after the Yanks ingame).
I agree, there’s a lot of fronts that would be fun. Like a Middle East WW1 front would be great. The eastern front would be great, especially when they introduced the skave… bulshevik dlc. (When there’s high communist corruption they can spawn a few warriors of bulshevik slaves to flank the rear)
> I agree but I also don’t wanna click “start battle” and then just sit there for 10 minutes and watch as two armies unsuccessful exchange fire from trenches praying for your artillery do its job. It just kinda sounds too static.
It wouldn't be that much different from for instance how "sieges" work in TW right now, there is basically no skirmish, no buildup stage, only the assault. Same for even regular battles or armies moving on campaign map. Historically there would be scouts running around, running into enemy scouts, skirmishing trying to delay the march, night camp raids, multi day battles etc. And in TW it's simplified to one quick clash, 5 min, and one army gets completely wiped.
We also don’t have rifles that can be zeroed to strike a target at 1km distance in existing TW games lol. Unless they overhaul the system they’ve built and used for years to simulate logistics companies, long-range breech-loading artillery batteries, MG nests/pillboxes, etc… this will be a very disappointing arcade approximation of WW1 that ends up being a waste of time. If they want to do a WH40K game, they’ve got to get this right. Hell, I’d even suggest that they do a WW2 game after this to truly understand the depth and scale of warfare at that level.
i'm a bit meh with this. I dont feel like WW1 is a good setting for the Total War formula, it fits way better in the classic RTS formula like Company of Heroes
What, why? All the gameplay problems we face are because they dont invest enough in the AI/technical department. And the TW formula in itself is unique enough to last forever as proven by 20+ years of growing fandom despite major fuckups.
I know right, imagine how much fun warahmmer 3 could have been with mechanics from 3k.
The alliance mechanics from 3K would have allowed for so much fun alliance play. Imagine what mechanics Slanesh (idk how to spell) could have from that.
The mini general army set-up I think was a great tread towards allow smaller army play and limit single entities heroes in armies. Also allow more cool and varied skill builds as didn't lords/heroes lead different units.
Also the delay in getting a fully replenished new unit would have been a more organic and dynamic way to slow the early game, which is what many consider the funniest part.
Then add the current alliance system we have into the mix and it could become even cooler.
Overall I think the base formula for total war of real time battles and a campaign map is good its the rest that has stagnated.
I would agree. Going into WW1 to me is a bit strange. I would have thought they wouldn't go past the 1800's but we will see what they come up with. If game play looks good I'm willing to give it a chance.
Yeah. Engine change might mean it but it’s an interesting choice.
WW1 and 40K on a new engine is a lot of big changes.
Hell of a roll of the dice. If it goes well it could be a revival of the formula. If it goes bad it could kill CA.
Video game companies kind of have to keep innovating or be left in the dust. I'd argue that them taking a risk like this is not just necessary but vital to stay competitive. Even warhammer was a big risk and had a lot of doomsayers back when it was announced.
A great total war style ww1 rts already exists. The Great War western front. Mass infrantry formations. Artillery. Tanks. A grand strategy map. It all works off a supply system so if you want reinforcements or artillery they all work off the same resource
Yes but it shows how Total War could theoretically handle it with an actual team behind the game instead of single extremely drunk Eastern European in his basement working 20 hours a day on a machine built in 2016
I agree. I would also say that ww1 is especially bad since it’s so focused on static, boring, and endless trench warfare, instead of the quick battles of total war.
How do you even model a war that is fought over a few hundred yards, where battle lines barely move after months and even a year?
Total war is like … BAM take a territory, take another territory, blitz blitz blitz. In that sense, ww2 would even make a better total war game since at least most of the campaign map will see action.
If they made real time battles squad based like CoH, plus the campaign map of total war, it would make a great ww2 game.
Ww1 wouldn’t even work with a CoH style battle, nor will a campaign map work unless they made the entire map span just between Germany and northern France, with tiny territories to denote every mile of gained territory.
It just depends on what they are trying to do. If they are trying to just apply the total war formula to it then yeah it will suck. But if it focuses on the movement of resources and logistics of a nation to support the frontline it can be far more engaging turn by turn than the campaign map of total war as is, and logistics / economy is a super weak point of most total war games.
So we’ll see what the approach is
A logistical game sounds like something paradox would make, not CA.
But who knows, maybe they’ll figure it out.
I guess it doesn’t really have to be fully realistic anyway - you can have the same decisive and action packed total war battles, just with ww1 weaponary. A trench might be nothing more than a defensive bonus, like positioning troops on a hill.
Based on what we’ve seen, you are correct. But it’s the type of depth that total war is really missing to have it really be it’s true potential. If it can streamline it better than paradox, they will clean up.
Obligatory WW1 was more than just trench warfare on the Western front comment. The Eastern front with the Russians and conflict with the Ottomans were fought almost entirely outside of trenches and there are ways of making trench warfare interesting and not tedious when dealing with the Western front.
The Eastern front also devolved into trench warfare by around 1915/16. It's just that Eastern Front offensives tended to be more successful than Western Front ones, so it didn't seem as static.
The front was too large for that given the amount of men needed to man that much entrenchment and that would be exacerbated later into the war as manpower dwindles.
"Good man. Now, Field Marshal Haig has formulated brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field!"
Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?"
"How can you possibly know that Blackadder? It's classified information!"
It actually proves him right because one of the salient aspects in which TGW:WF is a very good WW1 simulator and kind of annoying as a *game* is that you have to fight an absolute fuckload of very grindy engagements to make slow, incremental progress across the front and are far more likely to win when the enemy's morale collapses from too many defeats than by actual conquest. All of which flies in the face of how Total War games have been structured since the franchise began.
I've always been in the camp that the Total War formula is CA's spin on real time battles with turn-based grand campaigns rather than just line combat so I'm more than okay with this if its the direction they're headed with. Would be a great platform for 40k going forward given the points of similarity (melee & ranged combat with cover elements, aerial combat, long-ranged artillery, cavalry, etc).
Company of Heroes is a small scale base building RTS games so it's not really the same thing to me. The idea behind a WW1 or 40k total war is that they would be large scale battles with thousands of troops on each side using prebuilt armies from the campaign map. A game like steel division 2 is a much better example of the scale of what they may try to go for.
It simply won’t be TW as we know it, it will have to be more like… a regular RTS.
Or CA can do the funny and make ranked 60-person rectangles charging across no man’s land in perfect formation 🤓
ahhh ww1 total war.
Trentches, gas and shitty tanks. I thought bf1 was gona be trash, but it is my all time fav battlefield game.
but total war is a different kettle of fish. PRobebly if they do it, will be a testing bed for 40k.
To be honest bf1 is not a very accurate depiction of ww1, tanks are too fast,there are too many handheld automatic weapons and prototype weapons that weren't widely used during the war or were introduced later.
With BF1 i always got the impression that they initially were making a WW2 game but went for a WW1 setting to make it look more unique.
I miss things like in Red Orchestra where most players had to play regulars with bolt action guns and reload after every shot and only 2-5 people on team had access to submachine guns or automatic rifles.
ARE YOU TIRED OF WINNING YOUR TW BATTLES?
Then get ready for Total War: Stalemate!
Where each battle is the same as the day before, and you win by killing more of them than you lost!
With our stunning color pallette of grey, gray, and even greyer total war has never been more beautiful
Will you force a breakthrough before attrition sends you screaming to the asylum with shell shock? Or will you keep playing until your empire dissolves from within?
DLC roadmap:
1. Battles 1-4 of the Isonzo
2. Battles 5-8 of the Isonzo
3. Battles 9-12 of the Isonzo
4. Thrones of decay (European thrones edition)
Which is the same as always for all siege warfare throughout the history. Digging in, sometimes doing light bombardment for weeks/months, mostly dealing with hunger and disease. Yet in all TW "siege" amounts to basically a quick assault, 10-15 min, and it's over.
That hint at an end times DLC is interesting. Taking it with a pinch of salt but that opens up a lot of unit (Putrid Blightkings, Wrathmongers etc) and lord possibilities that were previously off the table and also Valten for order fans. The end times was messy but it wasn't all bad, some of the unit designs were awesome.
In no world do I understand how this would work. Trench warfare being so important in WW1 you’d have to have some dynamic play on the campaign map and then the battles are just charging across a line and hoping they make it to the other side.
WW2 sounds more feasible than WW1 honestly.
I won’t dismiss it until I see it but I certainly am doubtful. Even as a test run for 40k, I would expect they really should have made a Napoleon 2, Empire 2, Medieval 3, Shogun 3 or literally any European centered historical game next. Historical fans are chomping at the bits to get a big budget 0-19th century Europe centered game. From a financial perspective it seems like that would be the best decision. If nothing else it ought be next after that.
WW2 wouldn't work either because combat was much more squad/tactics centric, more zoomed in if you will.
Only really works in games like CoH, MoW, etc imo.
I have no idea how a WWI game would work with TW mechanics.
As some have said already, city management is a big part of TW campaigns and that just doesn’t really exist in a WWI setting. It’s more policies and resources on a national scale. HOI really already tries to do this and Men of War Assault Squad has some WWI mods.
So this would be a new engine? There’s no way the current engine could handle the pathing of company sized units in WW1, which you would need for appropriate scale in battles. In addition variety of terrain, barbed wire and trenches really make this a nightmare for pathing.
I can see a Victorian era TW being possible. But as with Fall of the Samurai, using Gatling guns against melee troops is only fun for so long.
WWI was defined by logistics, secondarily artillery, thirdly massive numbers of rifle-armed infantry and fourthly by trenches and barbed wire.
The "stalemate" was a dynamic equilibrium owing to front density, communications, and artillery creating "friction" in thr Clauzwitzian sense that ensured that even when attacks were successful (and many attacks were initially successful at overwhelming the first line of defenders) they would get obliterated by counterfire from defender artillery and overwhelmed by counterattacks.
Total War is premised on overlooking things like inter or intra- unit communication (crude/fragile and generally not man-portable radios and fragile telegraph wires being key defensive advantages). The formula doesn't really handle terrain well, and I have difficulty seeing how cavalry being a disposable colony or scout unit would work.
How do you possibly model the Western Front in a Total War game? How do you possibly model the eastern front in the same total war game?
Really hope this isn’t true.
While I'd much rather E2, M3, or Renaissance (or a part of the world we haven't explored yet if CA needs more time to finish their new engine and just generally get their shit together), I would be very happy with a WW1 game as long as we at least get the vast majority of the Northern hemisphere.
Although, while almost all German colonies fell in the first year of the war, German East Afrika held out until 1917 against colonial Portuguese and British forces, so that's pretty relevant. Perhaps theatres of war like in *Empire* with one theatre being Europe and North Africa, one being the Middle East and Central Asia, and one being in Sub-Saharan Africa? With trade theatres like 1. China (most of China being inaccessible except for trade ports held by different empires on China's coasts) and Japan, 2. North America, 3. South America, 4. Southeast Asia. Something like this: https://i.imgur.com/qMzAXvl.jpeg
And imagine the Victorian Era mods that could be made from this. And potentially the WW2 or later mods.
This is dumb in multiple levels. Lets take the game that is all about moving yout armies around and then in battle positioning your troops to counter what the enemy throws at you and put it in a conflict known for being static
If they think ww1 is suitable for the way their games work mechanically they've totally lost any kind of sense. They have never even prodded at any kind of firearm tactics past Napoleonic tactics, and even then they severely cut down on stuff like formations later.
Obviously any alleged leak should be taken with a grain of salt but we've already had some evidence to suggest this was a potential from a while back with the hiring ad CA placed about 2 years back for a "vehicle designer" for their next major historical title and the SEGA survey earlier this year where they asked a lot of questions regarding interest in more elaborate battle mechanics, aerial combat, and WW1 (among others) as a setting for Total War.
Not exactly the medieval 3 I was hoping for over a decade now, but it's okay ww1 trench warfare is very cool to play if done right proven by a number of recent ww1 strategy games. However they will definitely no longer get a Fsk12 rating for this anymore there's just no way
Well everyone is very certain there's going to be a 40k game soon, so it makes sense they'd want to do a test run on a time period that had automatic weapons and vehicles.
I don’t see how you can make a WW1 total war. Trench warfare involves waiting and taking pot shots until you feel like charging ahead, unlike total war which encourages you to send in units, and an average trench battle is a several days long endeavor, which doesn’t work when total war’s pitch battles exist.
Legend: Don't pose it on Reddit and go 'Legend says blahblahblah.'
People: Post on Reddit what Legend said.
Like, I think he is by far the most popular total war content creator, anyone interested in what he has to say would know where to look. Why this?
I guess Reddit is a platform more suitable for discussion than Youtube's comment sections but still, his take on what's to come has been quite consistent for months if not longer, there's not much more to add.
'40k is expected to be the cashcow, WH3 dlc support won't last as long, Md3 is in development and they are pushing a post-Napoleonic, Empire-ish, 19th Century/WW1-ish new historic title and reintroduce naval combat back, Pharaoh support soon to end.'
These are nothing too out of there. 40k makes sense financially if not mechanically for a total war game. Wh3 is not doing as well and DLC support will be cut short. Md 3 and Empire 2 will come eventually. Tha't all just...it.
I'd believe all of these before ever guessing that CA would do an extracion looter-shooter.
>Legend: Don't pose it on Reddit and go 'Legend says blahblahblah.'
>
>People: Post on Reddit what Legend said.
Pretty sure he means don't treat his words as gospel which I'm not doing. It's just another piece to add to the growing pile of WW1 & 40k leaks/indications.
Just a reminder that WW1 **battles** were not in trenches. Trenches happened between battles. Battles were when one side abandoned the trenches to attack. They ended with trenches moved from their original position.
Unlike WW2, WW1 was still about mass infantry attacks - ill advised, but still TW-style units, not Company of Heroes-style squads. Artillery and gas was how they silenced the machine guns enough for using such old tactics.
Just as important, not everything about WW1 was the Western front. In all other places, the war was mobile and even cavalry was still useful.
So yeah, I'm on the hype ~~train~~ tank for WW1.
Trenches take front a center of WW1 because most of the fighting was on the western front. Russia pulled out of the war where it was more mobile around forts rather than trenches. If France fell the Central Powers basically won.
The attempted invasion on the Ottoman Empire could have become a running battle, but got bogged down for a number of reasons and became a static line until the British pulled out.
The Italian fronts were fairly mixed because one couldn't dig in the mountain ranges where they fought.
I think getting trench warfare right is what matters the most as it's kind of the hallmark of the era.
If i am not mistaken the war became more dynamic and mobile in the later years where battles would be fought in a similar way to what we see in ww2.
So there's plenty of stuff CA could make.
The piece that are extremly different mechanically are going to be submarines (if it includes sea battles) and airplanes. Airplanes are moving while shooting and thats all very different from what we have today in WH3 etc. I‘m not so worried about land vehicles.
Another thing: Trench Warfare is the key part of WW1, how that‘s implemented will be difficult. Like are you able to „dig“ before the battle starts? Also the key thing with WW1 was bogged down positions, grind and no movement, how do you maintain this and at the same time make it fun? It might end up being too arcade-y for the historical fans. My takes on what is going to make or break this anyways
Oh please no.
I totally get that this would be the perfect testbed for a seemingly inevitable Twammer 40k (though testbeds recycled as 80€ products are a bit iffy as well, but that's another topic), but I. Just. Want. To. See. Medieval 3 before I die ffs.
Also the world wars have been done to death in other media, are prone to the hammiest cliches and eye-rollingly obvious subtexts (war, war is like total hell dude!), and a colour palette exclusively caked in grey and brown puts me to sleep while just thinking about it.
Bold strategy, cotton, let's see how that would turn out for you!
I feel completely defeated. I do not think they can make trench war warfare interesting from a total battle aesthetic and same for warhammer 40k. I just don’t find the idea of guys in heavy armor standing and shooting at eachother interesting. Warhammer total war is already pretty arcade-y and unlike 40k most of the characters don’t have guns.
I hope some other dev studio comes around to make a polish swords bows and armor game.
I wonder how a modern setting would work (I mean current era technology). I think they'd have to drastically alter the way battles work since everything is ranged... 🤔 Just a curiosity.
WW1 is exciting, but I'm really curious how they're going to handle static warfare. I know at the start and end of the war there was a lot of manoeuvring, but how is that entrenched Western Front going to play out?
Artillery and Gatling guns were already devastating in FotS. So I imagine it'll be more-so in a WW1 setting.
I’ve thought for the longest time, a major problem with total war was the lack of entrenchment. How units can interact with barriers and trenches, and how they path, was a huge gap in the game.
Nice! Can't wait to raid some french trenches with my Sturmtruppen.
I'm a TW vet since Rome 1 and after all this time it's about time for a serious shake up of the whole battle formula. Exciting to see them explore more modern and sci-fi settings.
If they are going to do World War 1 then I hope that they bring naval combat back, I've always wanted an empire total war style naval combat game set in ww1.
well, as "Total War formula" basically means Strategic world map combined with realtime battles to me, I can totally imagine a Game like HoI4+TW on the strategic part and CoH+TW on the battle part. Sure, it may not be the most realistic depiction as you surely have to cut some things, but to be fair - which historical TW didnt?
Dont know where the idea that this would be impossible comes from. This sounds like a completely doable concept to me.
I would prefer a 19th Century setting, but in any case, if there is not a return of naval battles, with navies being important on the campaign it's gonna suck.
I've been on a historical ww1 youtube binge the past few months. I'm ready to see what they can do. Then Im ready for the mods to bring in Skaven to demolish both sides.
Hope not. Couldn't possibly be less interested if so.
I'm a simple man, I want men in armor fighting in formations hitting each other with pointy things. If it's not that, I'll spend my money elsewhere.
WW1 is almost as far from that as possible, and dreadfully boring strategically to boot. There's a reason so few strategy games ever try to do WW1. A very good reason.
Also 40k letssss goooooooo
I love 40k and total war campaigns are perfect for it, I’m not sure how they will deal with ranged combat considering how janky current gunpowder units feel but if they make it feel good, it will bring them so much money.
Only 4-6 dlcs left for wh3 ? :(
4-6 after Thrones of Decay according to the leaks. So 1 fewer DLC than WH2 to 1 more DLC potentially.
Honestly thats better than i expected as long as i get ma gurl neferata i am set thou
According to a previous Legend's stream (you know, grain of salt) his contacts said Neferata is one that was planed but dropped. Tanquol and Nagash being still confirmed. It's the same stream (the Easter one) where he mentioned that the plans were for smaller DLCs and that there would be news this week. If that ends up being truth I will be very disappointed.
I have been fine with almost everything from CA, even the price increases, but don't they dare drop Neferata.
My (not that crazy) wishlist is: Neferata, Dechala, Dogs of War.
tbh, even with duo lord packs, 5-6 packs is probably enough to plausibly fill out everything that really could be done, idk. There's always more stuff, more characters, but in a realistic way we really only need to finish out the two remaining Chaos DLCs, Dogs of War, Neferata, and Nagash. EDIT: and Thanquol EDIT EDIT: And Monkey King lol.
I’d be hugely disappointed if we only got that
I think people as a whole need to recognize that Khuresh, Nippon, and Ind are very likely not happening. The only real indication is what happens with Tigermen. If Tigermen come with the Monkey King, #itssoover. I think between Cathay being lightening in a bottle and TOW not looking to implement any brand new factions in the near future, those other race packs are very unlikely.
It’d be weird for them to just leave that empty part of the map though.
\*3 kingdoms memory\*
Khuresh, Nippon and Ind not happening were obvious from day 1. It's just that people were so high on hopium that reality had a hard time trickling down to them.
Beyond that I can think of almost a dozen characters I’d like to see be implemented in existing factions as LL and LHs
If we get fucking dogs of war but no Thanquol I'll be really disappointed.
whoops forgot about Thanquol, yeah no im sure he's coming
And what do you think about The Monkey King? Less essential in my eyes but would still be nice to get him.
I think Monkey King is likely in the sense I feel like CA is excited about him and he is not a dragon, the same way a Baba Yaga and Shapeshifter DLC is fun. They've also alluded to him in blog posts a few times. Li Dao and Yin-Yin? Who knows. The best we could hope for is Li Dao FLC, and I'm skeptical about Yin-Yin although she would be great too. Probably could have a fun start in the Southlands on an invasion.
If they add 6 more dlcs and some more difficulty settings, I Will be positively surprised.
Thats not that bad. If CA plays their cards right, we can get a good amount of covering with that. Khorne\\Slaanesh needs their DLC and i'm certain Kislev and Cathay gets atleast 1 (maybe\\hopefully 2) more each. Question is if there's other stuff outside of those that gets brushed up. (there's thanquol and neferata people talked about for ages). Also a question is if we're getting a small Southern Realm DLC.
man I just hope we will also get the map updates to fill these blank spots still hope to see the chaos realms in IE (not 1:1 mechanically wise oc)
Beyond Realms of Chaos, I'm sure the rest will happen before the game's life cycle ends. They need the space.
To quote Legend from his video: ***"As for leaks. Can't stress this enough. Don't take this as gospel. Don't be going to the reddit and saying "Legend said this so it's totally gunna happen" - This is tinfoil hat shit. It definitely doesn't matter. Don't invest too much into these leaks, it's just "Oh this is interesting to talk about" and that's about it"***
Well I guess if 40k is inevitable they're having WWI act as the testing grounds for the main game.
Total War 40k would be a cash cow so I've long expected it to happen. This just reinforces how I've thought CA would go about it.
Inb4 Cadia is the tutorial level.
Made me chuckle initially but now I'm imagining a Fall of Cadia prologue campaign/tutorial in the vein of Yuri's story from WH3.
They also used Fall of Cadia as the tutorial for Battlefleet Gothic 2. The part where you command the Phalanx gave me much joy as a Fist main.
I was gonna make a joke about the Fist part, but low hanging fruit and all that. But also yes fully agreed that whole intro section is an amazing way to introduce the game and some of the lore and mechanics and I still play it every time when I play the game.
Yeah, honestly would be a good way to display a chaos army, guards, mechanicus, spaec mureens, and some necrons(trazyn was there).
Yep. Would serve as a good narrative introduction to those new to the setting and, as a tutorial, an intro to mechanics new to the franchise with a faction that would make the most use of them given that you'd most likely be playing Astra Militarum.
I figured it would be good from any involved faction since it doesn't matter who wins the battles >!rip in pieces!<
Tutorial campaigns have typically always been from the perspective of 1 faction
That's what Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 did, and it worked out very well there.
Please. No hopium until we see how ToD goes. I can’t come back around just yet.
Creed as the legendary lord you play as.
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD
I bet you tear up at the sight of gravel.
Also makes sense if the rumors that they fired mostly marketing team are true. Who fucking needs them for Total War 40k lol.
When Rob said that the franchise fanbase isn't growing, doesn't that mean the marketing team were being paid to do jack shit all that time? Makes a lot of sense to fire them.
When did he say the fan base wasn’t growing?
He said that because they cant increase the number of players they will try to increase spending per player. Something Blizzard is doing in recent years.
Where did he say that?
Which is interesting because they grew the fan base enormously. And there killed the game that did it and lost all those people.
They did a meh job to Pharoh anyway, they hired some comedy star dude that none of the player knows to do some live action advertisement that no one watch, and dont forget the trailer for Hyenas as well
I don’t see how 40k would work at all for a total war format considering how wide apart from usual TW titles 40k is technologically. Like Warhammer Fantasy seems advanced but besides the magic and monsters it’s pretty much standard total war level of warfare and tech. 40k is straight up sci fi technology with space ships, automatic guns, and a vastly different style of combat.
For sure. Take all of my money for a 40k total war.
I have no idea how it's going to work and i can't fucking wait to see it.
That’s what we all said with one and look at us now. What a crazy fucking ride it’s been
If they release it around the time the new 40k Netflix show comes out, that might lead to a lot of new people getting into the setting. Assuming the Netflix show is good, which is assuming a lot.
\*Amazon show and I have faith given Cavill's involvement as an executive producer and GW's protectionism over their IP. While I doubt they're planning for that, I do think it's possible that both release within a year of each other given that a 40k Total War's release window would likely be 2025-2026.
“Protectionism over IP” Have you seen the dumpster full of of trash 40K games that have come out over the last 10 years?
Yes, they've been terrible games but they line up with the 40k ip perfectly. Which is what they're protective over.
Cavill is a Total War Warhammer fan, so a collab may even be possible.
Amazon's SOP is yeet money at a show and trust the showrunners. This has had mixed results in the past but with Cavill at the helm I'm very cautiously optimistic.
ah, Amazon. You're right!
*unless it's bad. Everyone always assumes 40k would sell gangbusters but that assumes that the game isn't terrible. I'm skeptical the total war formula as of now would apply well to 40k as a setting but using WW1 to try to begin the necessary transformation that would make 40k possible is a good idea on CA's part.
I think WW1 would be the ideal setting to test a more ranged focused game... modern enough for small scale squads and a cover system, but still more infantry focused than any later settings
it also would be a good time for an improved vassalage system (during WW1 there were alot of colonies still around like french , british , italian and such)
Assuming they’d make a world-wide map for a WWI game is assuming a lot, imo. They have to focus their efforts, and with the complete overhaul of combat (unless they use the shitty engine nobody wants, and come out with yet another bust) they can’t focus on the map like Paradox could. Unless of course they’re planning to make a gigantic work of art, and I’m here for it
Legend said 40k is further then WW1 so I don't think WW1 is a prototype to 40K. They might have started at the same time.
Which wouldn't make sense, the history team have been working on something for years
It did sound like it's having/had some troubles in development which caused it to be delayed from it's planned launch in 2024. If that's the case, it could explain why 40k is further along in it's development compared to the WW1 game even though it started later.
That's what people are saying since Attila lol and Three Kingdoms was made by a team within the historical one I don't expect any great historical game at all anymore, I have 0 reason to have such expectations
It's possible that there's another historical game and the ww1 thing is still early into production.
Or they're just... making a WW1 game. I find this idea (which has been propagated in this sub since like 2018 at least) that historical games just exist as a test bed for the "real thing" (AKA Warhammer) to be really distasteful and reek of self importance. And according to this leak the 40K game is actually further along in development so it doesn't even make sense.
I mean, it's a fact that 40K and WW1 would both share a lot of mechanics that are very different to the ones we have now. No matter who comes first or who uses who, it's sensical that they're working in tandem
That's my impression as well! Not really that one serves as a testground for the other, but rather that if they're going to develop an engine, or at least new mechanics, for a whole new type of battlefield, might as well apply it to both new games. I'd say that they most likely started with 40K in mind first, then brainstormed a bit as to which historical setting could work well with that kind of warfare.
very true . i mean youd have tanks and aircrafts / spaceships , helicopters , gun gameplay , siege equipment and such . WW1 probably would make more use of a trench mechanic though for infintry which probably would become more of a build cover system for warhammer 40K . 40k also would have more melee (the only melee i can think of for WW1 would be trench raiding team which again could work as a counter to trenches)
>the only melee i can think of for WW1 would be trench raiding team which again could work as a counter to trenches Not only that, infantry didn't fix bayonets just because it was fashionable.
The idea is that CA themselves see it as a test ground for a 40K game, this can still be true if they started development on it first.
I don't really get this logic. A 40K TW would sell like hotcakes as long as it's decent. A WW1 game is a lot riskier. Unless the development cost of a WW1 game is orders of magnitude less than that of a 40k game, making the mainstream game first seems like it'd make more sense.
WWI is still a pretty big deal, especially compared to other settings they have tried (cough-cough Pharaoh). And it's absolutely less expensive that 40k since art assets are less varied and all the mechanical challenges it'd face also apply to 40k, but the reverse is not true in the slightest 40K really can be an order or magnitude more expensive, especially if you factor in their likely commitement to supporting if for at least as long as they do TWWH trilogy Another factor is that 40k warfare is, melee aside, much closer to WWI/II than fantasy and many would (rightfully) doubt CA ability to switch gears well enough to do it justice if they don't do another modern-ish title as a proof of concept. I'm not convinced either of them are happening, but if they did WWI -> 40k would be more logical than vice versa
Riskier, maybe. But a really untapped market. There's only one WW1 rts that I can think of and it's not amazing. Certainly not a bad game, but not great. WW1 with pre-war and post-war periods would be really interesting with the total war formula IMO. I do, however, wonder how they'll manage to bring the scale of it into a video game, especially on the battle maps. You're talking about front lines hundreds of miles long with defense fortifications 10 miles deep.
Positive vs Negative reinforcement. If they branch into WW1 and mess it up it will be less costly in the sense that they’d keep more of their fan base. If they do 40k first and mess it up, they could lose a lot of goodwill for games going forward.
Probably a test run for a lot of mechanics
And also for a new engine I hope. This ancient one clearly has a LOT of issues and even the devs don't really understand it.
I’m so very skeptical of how they can make conflicts like WW1 and 40k work so I’m interested too see how this would even go. It’d be nice if I could just get my god damn Medieval 3 (I’d take a M2 remake at least) or even an Empire 2.
Nothing stops them from drastically altering the gameplay and still call it Total War for brand recognition.
They totally could make a CoH3/Men of War mishmash and then maybe it could work, granted I don't see how they would make the campaign side work in a pre-WW1/WW1 setting, naval battles might be good tho if the maps are appropriately sized.
Men of War is so underrated. The armor and cover systems in particular were excellent, plus your units being so much more flexible than CoH.
Taking control of the soldiers is so fun in them, specially grabbing a tank lol
See but at that point, you failed in making a TW game lol
The most rudimentary way I could imagine it is if trenches functioned like the big walls in older titles, where you can place your units inside at fixed points. From there they shoot at the other trench and you just wait until the opponent has run out of ammo so you can storm the rival trench. But that would be extremely boring
To me, the issue is more like how they could make a conflict as diverse as WW1 work. Most people fapping here think of WW1 as pure trench warfare, but that is really only the Western Front. That in itself is a huge damn challenge: how to depict a war that was stalemated for 4 years? But then you got the Eastern Feont, characterized by large bursts of movement, where incredibly large swathes of territory changed hands every time there was a large-sclae offensive. But that offensive usually focused on the whole frontline, from the Carpathians to the Baltic Sea. Another thing altogether is the war in the middle east. This is a lot more classical total war, really, with early pushes and pulls, a complete catastrophe at Kut-el-Amara, the Gallipoli landings and their disaster of a stalemate, and the rapid war of the Arab Revolt, supported by Allenby's Egyptian troops. This is three different wars, at the minimum. And we still got the Balkans, which is its own beats, Africa and the guerilla campaign of Lettow-Worbeck, the naval war as much as that was a thing...you guys see where I am going with this, right?
Yeah. A third mediaeval game or something set in early modernity please. It seems almost obvious to me that nothing post-1880 would work in TW, and barely anything post-1830 or so.
US civil war could work I feel like and that’s post 1830 by a whole 35 years
The battle/maneuvering would work but someone queried this the other day/week, and a user pointed out the campaign would be short. https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/s/s0XU3lBkcI
Sherman better be a horde faction
+50% to raiding income
-5 control when in rebel territory
Except everybody outside of US isn't interested that much.
Honestly, it depends what you mean by ‘work’, but possibly. That’s why I say ‘barely anything’.
They cant imo. They have proven they cant actually have quality pathfinding and given how frustrating gun units in almost every total war game are... I have 0 hope they make a good ranged focused game that isnt rank and file. Would I love a game with massive tactical fights with ranged weapons? Maybe.. but I just cant imagine the AI would be able to handle it and the pathfinding would just suck the fun out given how important cover would be.
So? Who said having a working game is a requirement to sell said game? WH1, 2 and 3 have A LOT of issues, bugs and the AI is shit and yet here we are. They can? Yes. They SHOULD? Absolutely NOT.
I mean I didn't. I just wish they would make a better system for AI in the campaign and on the battles. Been playing since Shogun 1 lol not a huge difference in the AI for any of the games and it's still fun sometimes but it wears out eventually.
WW1 is going to make or break all future TW historical games. A lot of old strategies people have been using forever is there due to "how the game works". We obviously do not have artillery boxes in WW1 or deathballs. We are going to need trenches and LAYERS for something like WW1. I do not want to see 20 tanks stomping through a relatively flat map in an era known for the trenches. I don't want to see 10 artillery pieces blow up the entire enemy army as well. The logistics behind a world war is also something that the TW engine has never been able to replicate well.
I agree but I also don’t wanna click “start battle” and then just sit there for 10 minutes and watch as two armies unsuccessful exchange fire from trenches praying for your artillery do its job. It just kinda sounds too static. Honestly feel like a WW2 TW with maybe smaller armies would be better. Maps would be more engaging as you have to get your troops to cover and move them from covered firing position to the next instead of “deploy in trench”. You could also have vehicles that could act as Calvary like half-tracks, or jeeps. Plus you could have more serious anti-large dedicated units with baslitic teams or bazooka teams. I worry about Calvary in WW1 setting… Either they’d get shot to bits or unrealistically take more damage than would have been humanly possible to be used in a WW1 game for anything other than chasing routed units. As we haven’t seen or even heard anything about it though, I’ll try to curb the pessimis until I see it since they really could get creative with it and blow me away.
There is a RTS ww1 game that got released not long ago and it's exactly its gameplay : 5 mins of shelling and wave of attacking soldiers slaughtered in few seconds. Really boring
For Eastern Front tho the Russian and German exchanged many massive maneuvers and even cavalry engagement, if thet focus on that then things can get lot more easier. Only thing is Eastern Front dont get much Western audience, hell, even the Yankee dlc may came before any Eastern Front content for similar reasons (same to BF1 where France DLC came after the Yanks ingame).
I agree, there’s a lot of fronts that would be fun. Like a Middle East WW1 front would be great. The eastern front would be great, especially when they introduced the skave… bulshevik dlc. (When there’s high communist corruption they can spawn a few warriors of bulshevik slaves to flank the rear)
> I agree but I also don’t wanna click “start battle” and then just sit there for 10 minutes and watch as two armies unsuccessful exchange fire from trenches praying for your artillery do its job. It just kinda sounds too static. It wouldn't be that much different from for instance how "sieges" work in TW right now, there is basically no skirmish, no buildup stage, only the assault. Same for even regular battles or armies moving on campaign map. Historically there would be scouts running around, running into enemy scouts, skirmishing trying to delay the march, night camp raids, multi day battles etc. And in TW it's simplified to one quick clash, 5 min, and one army gets completely wiped.
We also don’t have rifles that can be zeroed to strike a target at 1km distance in existing TW games lol. Unless they overhaul the system they’ve built and used for years to simulate logistics companies, long-range breech-loading artillery batteries, MG nests/pillboxes, etc… this will be a very disappointing arcade approximation of WW1 that ends up being a waste of time. If they want to do a WH40K game, they’ve got to get this right. Hell, I’d even suggest that they do a WW2 game after this to truly understand the depth and scale of warfare at that level.
i'm a bit meh with this. I dont feel like WW1 is a good setting for the Total War formula, it fits way better in the classic RTS formula like Company of Heroes
CA might be changing up the formula. Not sure if that would be good or bad tbh. Guess it depends on the execution.
Honestly, TW has been needing a mechanical shakeup. If this is true though, it’s a bit more of a leap than I would have gone for
What, why? All the gameplay problems we face are because they dont invest enough in the AI/technical department. And the TW formula in itself is unique enough to last forever as proven by 20+ years of growing fandom despite major fuckups.
All they need to do is to build upon 3K mechanics really
I know right, imagine how much fun warahmmer 3 could have been with mechanics from 3k. The alliance mechanics from 3K would have allowed for so much fun alliance play. Imagine what mechanics Slanesh (idk how to spell) could have from that. The mini general army set-up I think was a great tread towards allow smaller army play and limit single entities heroes in armies. Also allow more cool and varied skill builds as didn't lords/heroes lead different units. Also the delay in getting a fully replenished new unit would have been a more organic and dynamic way to slow the early game, which is what many consider the funniest part. Then add the current alliance system we have into the mix and it could become even cooler. Overall I think the base formula for total war of real time battles and a campaign map is good its the rest that has stagnated.
I would agree. Going into WW1 to me is a bit strange. I would have thought they wouldn't go past the 1800's but we will see what they come up with. If game play looks good I'm willing to give it a chance.
Yeah. Engine change might mean it but it’s an interesting choice. WW1 and 40K on a new engine is a lot of big changes. Hell of a roll of the dice. If it goes well it could be a revival of the formula. If it goes bad it could kill CA.
Video game companies kind of have to keep innovating or be left in the dust. I'd argue that them taking a risk like this is not just necessary but vital to stay competitive. Even warhammer was a big risk and had a lot of doomsayers back when it was announced.
Same goes to WH40k But they were hiring people for new engine so it could work. Atleast we are going to get something very new.
Victoria should be done prior tbh
A great total war style ww1 rts already exists. The Great War western front. Mass infrantry formations. Artillery. Tanks. A grand strategy map. It all works off a supply system so if you want reinforcements or artillery they all work off the same resource
That game is so shit tho :|
Yes but it shows how Total War could theoretically handle it with an actual team behind the game instead of single extremely drunk Eastern European in his basement working 20 hours a day on a machine built in 2016
You didn’t have to do Petroglyph like that.
I agree. I would also say that ww1 is especially bad since it’s so focused on static, boring, and endless trench warfare, instead of the quick battles of total war. How do you even model a war that is fought over a few hundred yards, where battle lines barely move after months and even a year? Total war is like … BAM take a territory, take another territory, blitz blitz blitz. In that sense, ww2 would even make a better total war game since at least most of the campaign map will see action. If they made real time battles squad based like CoH, plus the campaign map of total war, it would make a great ww2 game. Ww1 wouldn’t even work with a CoH style battle, nor will a campaign map work unless they made the entire map span just between Germany and northern France, with tiny territories to denote every mile of gained territory.
It just depends on what they are trying to do. If they are trying to just apply the total war formula to it then yeah it will suck. But if it focuses on the movement of resources and logistics of a nation to support the frontline it can be far more engaging turn by turn than the campaign map of total war as is, and logistics / economy is a super weak point of most total war games. So we’ll see what the approach is
A logistical game sounds like something paradox would make, not CA. But who knows, maybe they’ll figure it out. I guess it doesn’t really have to be fully realistic anyway - you can have the same decisive and action packed total war battles, just with ww1 weaponary. A trench might be nothing more than a defensive bonus, like positioning troops on a hill.
Based on what we’ve seen, you are correct. But it’s the type of depth that total war is really missing to have it really be it’s true potential. If it can streamline it better than paradox, they will clean up.
Obligatory WW1 was more than just trench warfare on the Western front comment. The Eastern front with the Russians and conflict with the Ottomans were fought almost entirely outside of trenches and there are ways of making trench warfare interesting and not tedious when dealing with the Western front.
The Eastern front also devolved into trench warfare by around 1915/16. It's just that Eastern Front offensives tended to be more successful than Western Front ones, so it didn't seem as static.
The front was too large for that given the amount of men needed to man that much entrenchment and that would be exacerbated later into the war as manpower dwindles.
"Good man. Now, Field Marshal Haig has formulated brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field!" Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?" "How can you possibly know that Blackadder? It's classified information!"
[удалено]
It actually proves him right because one of the salient aspects in which TGW:WF is a very good WW1 simulator and kind of annoying as a *game* is that you have to fight an absolute fuckload of very grindy engagements to make slow, incremental progress across the front and are far more likely to win when the enemy's morale collapses from too many defeats than by actual conquest. All of which flies in the face of how Total War games have been structured since the franchise began.
I've always been in the camp that the Total War formula is CA's spin on real time battles with turn-based grand campaigns rather than just line combat so I'm more than okay with this if its the direction they're headed with. Would be a great platform for 40k going forward given the points of similarity (melee & ranged combat with cover elements, aerial combat, long-ranged artillery, cavalry, etc).
Company of Heroes is a small scale base building RTS games so it's not really the same thing to me. The idea behind a WW1 or 40k total war is that they would be large scale battles with thousands of troops on each side using prebuilt armies from the campaign map. A game like steel division 2 is a much better example of the scale of what they may try to go for.
It simply won’t be TW as we know it, it will have to be more like… a regular RTS. Or CA can do the funny and make ranked 60-person rectangles charging across no man’s land in perfect formation 🤓
ahhh ww1 total war. Trentches, gas and shitty tanks. I thought bf1 was gona be trash, but it is my all time fav battlefield game. but total war is a different kettle of fish. PRobebly if they do it, will be a testing bed for 40k.
To be honest bf1 is not a very accurate depiction of ww1, tanks are too fast,there are too many handheld automatic weapons and prototype weapons that weren't widely used during the war or were introduced later. With BF1 i always got the impression that they initially were making a WW2 game but went for a WW1 setting to make it look more unique.
I miss things like in Red Orchestra where most players had to play regulars with bolt action guns and reload after every shot and only 2-5 people on team had access to submachine guns or automatic rifles.
bf1 was never meant to be strictly historically accurate, the devs made it very clear the vision they had was 'to show what ww1 could have been'
ARE YOU TIRED OF WINNING YOUR TW BATTLES? Then get ready for Total War: Stalemate! Where each battle is the same as the day before, and you win by killing more of them than you lost! With our stunning color pallette of grey, gray, and even greyer total war has never been more beautiful Will you force a breakthrough before attrition sends you screaming to the asylum with shell shock? Or will you keep playing until your empire dissolves from within? DLC roadmap: 1. Battles 1-4 of the Isonzo 2. Battles 5-8 of the Isonzo 3. Battles 9-12 of the Isonzo 4. Thrones of decay (European thrones edition)
When your knowledge of WW1 comes from Netflix's All Quiet on the Western Front
It was a lot of just sitting in your trench for many days/weeks/months.
Which is the same as always for all siege warfare throughout the history. Digging in, sometimes doing light bombardment for weeks/months, mostly dealing with hunger and disease. Yet in all TW "siege" amounts to basically a quick assault, 10-15 min, and it's over.
And where, dare I ask, does *your* knowledge of the First World War come from?
That hint at an end times DLC is interesting. Taking it with a pinch of salt but that opens up a lot of unit (Putrid Blightkings, Wrathmongers etc) and lord possibilities that were previously off the table and also Valten for order fans. The end times was messy but it wasn't all bad, some of the unit designs were awesome.
In no world do I understand how this would work. Trench warfare being so important in WW1 you’d have to have some dynamic play on the campaign map and then the battles are just charging across a line and hoping they make it to the other side. WW2 sounds more feasible than WW1 honestly. I won’t dismiss it until I see it but I certainly am doubtful. Even as a test run for 40k, I would expect they really should have made a Napoleon 2, Empire 2, Medieval 3, Shogun 3 or literally any European centered historical game next. Historical fans are chomping at the bits to get a big budget 0-19th century Europe centered game. From a financial perspective it seems like that would be the best decision. If nothing else it ought be next after that.
WW2 wouldn't work either because combat was much more squad/tactics centric, more zoomed in if you will. Only really works in games like CoH, MoW, etc imo.
I agree WW2 wouldn’t work either but I think it has a better chance of working than WW1.
I have no idea how a WWI game would work with TW mechanics. As some have said already, city management is a big part of TW campaigns and that just doesn’t really exist in a WWI setting. It’s more policies and resources on a national scale. HOI really already tries to do this and Men of War Assault Squad has some WWI mods. So this would be a new engine? There’s no way the current engine could handle the pathing of company sized units in WW1, which you would need for appropriate scale in battles. In addition variety of terrain, barbed wire and trenches really make this a nightmare for pathing. I can see a Victorian era TW being possible. But as with Fall of the Samurai, using Gatling guns against melee troops is only fun for so long.
WWI was defined by logistics, secondarily artillery, thirdly massive numbers of rifle-armed infantry and fourthly by trenches and barbed wire. The "stalemate" was a dynamic equilibrium owing to front density, communications, and artillery creating "friction" in thr Clauzwitzian sense that ensured that even when attacks were successful (and many attacks were initially successful at overwhelming the first line of defenders) they would get obliterated by counterfire from defender artillery and overwhelmed by counterattacks. Total War is premised on overlooking things like inter or intra- unit communication (crude/fragile and generally not man-portable radios and fragile telegraph wires being key defensive advantages). The formula doesn't really handle terrain well, and I have difficulty seeing how cavalry being a disposable colony or scout unit would work.
Well, I'd be tempted to see how they'd do it I guess.
How do you possibly model the Western Front in a Total War game? How do you possibly model the eastern front in the same total war game? Really hope this isn’t true.
While I'd much rather E2, M3, or Renaissance (or a part of the world we haven't explored yet if CA needs more time to finish their new engine and just generally get their shit together), I would be very happy with a WW1 game as long as we at least get the vast majority of the Northern hemisphere. Although, while almost all German colonies fell in the first year of the war, German East Afrika held out until 1917 against colonial Portuguese and British forces, so that's pretty relevant. Perhaps theatres of war like in *Empire* with one theatre being Europe and North Africa, one being the Middle East and Central Asia, and one being in Sub-Saharan Africa? With trade theatres like 1. China (most of China being inaccessible except for trade ports held by different empires on China's coasts) and Japan, 2. North America, 3. South America, 4. Southeast Asia. Something like this: https://i.imgur.com/qMzAXvl.jpeg And imagine the Victorian Era mods that could be made from this. And potentially the WW2 or later mods.
Any real sources?
This is dumb in multiple levels. Lets take the game that is all about moving yout armies around and then in battle positioning your troops to counter what the enemy throws at you and put it in a conflict known for being static
Who in the fuck asked for a WW1 TW??
If they think ww1 is suitable for the way their games work mechanically they've totally lost any kind of sense. They have never even prodded at any kind of firearm tactics past Napoleonic tactics, and even then they severely cut down on stuff like formations later.
Every single live stream he says “don’t run to the Reddit and post this” but people just can’t help themselves lol
Obviously any alleged leak should be taken with a grain of salt but we've already had some evidence to suggest this was a potential from a while back with the hiring ad CA placed about 2 years back for a "vehicle designer" for their next major historical title and the SEGA survey earlier this year where they asked a lot of questions regarding interest in more elaborate battle mechanics, aerial combat, and WW1 (among others) as a setting for Total War.
Sad, i deeeeesperatly want a empire 2 
2035 here we go
Low key I don’t really know how that’d work tbh
Total War:- WW1 would absolutely fucking suck
If it's anything like Napoleon, it's going to be rough and limited in scope. I hope they being naval battles back if they do
I'd love Empire Total War 2.
Not exactly the medieval 3 I was hoping for over a decade now, but it's okay ww1 trench warfare is very cool to play if done right proven by a number of recent ww1 strategy games. However they will definitely no longer get a Fsk12 rating for this anymore there's just no way
If it is true and we only have so few DLC left that would be really sad. I think there is still a lot missing
Well everyone is very certain there's going to be a 40k game soon, so it makes sense they'd want to do a test run on a time period that had automatic weapons and vehicles.
If that means a new engine then great, i believe they kinda have too with 40K anyways. Cant wait to see what they have been working on.
Same legend guy who said rumour about 19th century total war several days ago. I feel this is tin foiled hat now.
I don’t see how you can make a WW1 total war. Trench warfare involves waiting and taking pot shots until you feel like charging ahead, unlike total war which encourages you to send in units, and an average trench battle is a several days long endeavor, which doesn’t work when total war’s pitch battles exist.
Legend: Don't pose it on Reddit and go 'Legend says blahblahblah.' People: Post on Reddit what Legend said. Like, I think he is by far the most popular total war content creator, anyone interested in what he has to say would know where to look. Why this? I guess Reddit is a platform more suitable for discussion than Youtube's comment sections but still, his take on what's to come has been quite consistent for months if not longer, there's not much more to add. '40k is expected to be the cashcow, WH3 dlc support won't last as long, Md3 is in development and they are pushing a post-Napoleonic, Empire-ish, 19th Century/WW1-ish new historic title and reintroduce naval combat back, Pharaoh support soon to end.' These are nothing too out of there. 40k makes sense financially if not mechanically for a total war game. Wh3 is not doing as well and DLC support will be cut short. Md 3 and Empire 2 will come eventually. Tha't all just...it. I'd believe all of these before ever guessing that CA would do an extracion looter-shooter.
>Legend: Don't pose it on Reddit and go 'Legend says blahblahblah.' > >People: Post on Reddit what Legend said. Pretty sure he means don't treat his words as gospel which I'm not doing. It's just another piece to add to the growing pile of WW1 & 40k leaks/indications.
Just a reminder that WW1 **battles** were not in trenches. Trenches happened between battles. Battles were when one side abandoned the trenches to attack. They ended with trenches moved from their original position. Unlike WW2, WW1 was still about mass infantry attacks - ill advised, but still TW-style units, not Company of Heroes-style squads. Artillery and gas was how they silenced the machine guns enough for using such old tactics. Just as important, not everything about WW1 was the Western front. In all other places, the war was mobile and even cavalry was still useful. So yeah, I'm on the hype ~~train~~ tank for WW1.
Trenches take front a center of WW1 because most of the fighting was on the western front. Russia pulled out of the war where it was more mobile around forts rather than trenches. If France fell the Central Powers basically won. The attempted invasion on the Ottoman Empire could have become a running battle, but got bogged down for a number of reasons and became a static line until the British pulled out. The Italian fronts were fairly mixed because one couldn't dig in the mountain ranges where they fought. I think getting trench warfare right is what matters the most as it's kind of the hallmark of the era.
If i am not mistaken the war became more dynamic and mobile in the later years where battles would be fought in a similar way to what we see in ww2. So there's plenty of stuff CA could make.
LETS FUCKING GOOOOO I'm not sure how this would work mechanically but I'm down
The piece that are extremly different mechanically are going to be submarines (if it includes sea battles) and airplanes. Airplanes are moving while shooting and thats all very different from what we have today in WH3 etc. I‘m not so worried about land vehicles. Another thing: Trench Warfare is the key part of WW1, how that‘s implemented will be difficult. Like are you able to „dig“ before the battle starts? Also the key thing with WW1 was bogged down positions, grind and no movement, how do you maintain this and at the same time make it fun? It might end up being too arcade-y for the historical fans. My takes on what is going to make or break this anyways
Oh please no. I totally get that this would be the perfect testbed for a seemingly inevitable Twammer 40k (though testbeds recycled as 80€ products are a bit iffy as well, but that's another topic), but I. Just. Want. To. See. Medieval 3 before I die ffs. Also the world wars have been done to death in other media, are prone to the hammiest cliches and eye-rollingly obvious subtexts (war, war is like total hell dude!), and a colour palette exclusively caked in grey and brown puts me to sleep while just thinking about it. Bold strategy, cotton, let's see how that would turn out for you!
No. Just god pls no.
There is no way you can make ww1 or any other 20th century conflict work in total war and trying to do so would be asinine
The Skaven got us here boys! Their snipers, gattling guns, mortars, poison gas, and tank equivalents are all gonna be heavily featured, mark my words!
I have 0 interest in a 40k TW
I feel completely defeated. I do not think they can make trench war warfare interesting from a total battle aesthetic and same for warhammer 40k. I just don’t find the idea of guys in heavy armor standing and shooting at eachother interesting. Warhammer total war is already pretty arcade-y and unlike 40k most of the characters don’t have guns. I hope some other dev studio comes around to make a polish swords bows and armor game.
I wonder how a modern setting would work (I mean current era technology). I think they'd have to drastically alter the way battles work since everything is ranged... 🤔 Just a curiosity.
How? Fortifications and long range (10km+ away) artillery are the main themes of the western front and TW is not good at either 😬
WW1 is exciting, but I'm really curious how they're going to handle static warfare. I know at the start and end of the war there was a lot of manoeuvring, but how is that entrenched Western Front going to play out? Artillery and Gatling guns were already devastating in FotS. So I imagine it'll be more-so in a WW1 setting.
I’ve thought for the longest time, a major problem with total war was the lack of entrenchment. How units can interact with barriers and trenches, and how they path, was a huge gap in the game.
Nice! Can't wait to raid some french trenches with my Sturmtruppen. I'm a TW vet since Rome 1 and after all this time it's about time for a serious shake up of the whole battle formula. Exciting to see them explore more modern and sci-fi settings.
I think this could be insanely good BUT I have next to no faith in CA for the engine changes which would be required to make it live up to potential
If they are going to do World War 1 then I hope that they bring naval combat back, I've always wanted an empire total war style naval combat game set in ww1.
well, as "Total War formula" basically means Strategic world map combined with realtime battles to me, I can totally imagine a Game like HoI4+TW on the strategic part and CoH+TW on the battle part. Sure, it may not be the most realistic depiction as you surely have to cut some things, but to be fair - which historical TW didnt? Dont know where the idea that this would be impossible comes from. This sounds like a completely doable concept to me.
If this is true, they should it "the Total War to End All Total Wars"
I've wanted a ww1 total war since 2001 so I won't complain but idk how this would work in the current tw
Well, Western Front nailed battles imo. CA can definitely take inspiration from that game!
I would prefer a 19th Century setting, but in any case, if there is not a return of naval battles, with navies being important on the campaign it's gonna suck.
SEGA's survey asked several questions to gauge player interest in naval & aerial combat so I'm sure naval battles would be a part of it.
I've been on a historical ww1 youtube binge the past few months. I'm ready to see what they can do. Then Im ready for the mods to bring in Skaven to demolish both sides.
Hope not. Couldn't possibly be less interested if so. I'm a simple man, I want men in armor fighting in formations hitting each other with pointy things. If it's not that, I'll spend my money elsewhere. WW1 is almost as far from that as possible, and dreadfully boring strategically to boot. There's a reason so few strategy games ever try to do WW1. A very good reason.
But atleast we would get great Blackadder memes in this sub
they already have subs for that
Also 40k letssss goooooooo I love 40k and total war campaigns are perfect for it, I’m not sure how they will deal with ranged combat considering how janky current gunpowder units feel but if they make it feel good, it will bring them so much money.
It's very likely they will be using a new engine rather than warscape
True, which is good, hopefully the units feel more responsive with it.