UESP Forums

Note: Anyone who doesn't know what a total war game is like, then the spoilered bit is a brief summary.

Reading through a different thread, and I started thinking about what a Total War game would be like if it was set in Tamriel. There's several points in Tamriel's history, and bits in the main RPGs that lend themselves to this kind of game - The Alliance War of TES:O, which would be like the conquering the whole of Europe mode in current X: Total War games, then there are loads of good ideas for smaller campaigns, like The Civil War in Skyrim (Possibly a bit short though, since there's only 9 territories, 18 or so settlements and a few forts...) Or Ra Gada conquest of Volenfell, Or the Aldmeri conquest of the Summurset Isles from the Sload, the the 1st and inevitable 2nd Great Wars... (note, these aren't in historical order)

The list could go on for ages, so I won't, but that is a tiny amount of ideas that could be done.

Suffice to say, it could work really well - there's already a fairly lore appropriate time or two for the grand campaign, and 10 races goes into 10 factions quite nicely, and if nothing else, the sheer graphical potential would be be epic - imagine watching a thousand altmeri battlemages casting fireball/lightning storm spells, or a few nords shout enemy walls down, or a few hundred orcs use berserker rage and then charging the enemy...(insert prefered race specific awesomeness here)

What do you guys reckon?

OMG


There's no need to say nothing more

That sounds fun. The Total War games can become very hard and challenging, it would be a great spin-off.


Or imagine Age of Empire:Tamriel

Are we talking only the 10 playable races? Lots of huge wars with non-playable races in the Mythic and 1st Eras.

It depends on the settings and the wars. But overall, i would love to see that as battles are rarely done well in TES games. TES Lore is full of wars so they would be able to set it away from the 5 games to avoid conflict. I believe that the next great war would be perfect for this as well as the Oblivion Crisis and so forth.

House of the Wolf wrote:Are we talking only the 10 playable races? Lots of huge wars with non-playable races in the Mythic and 1st Eras.

The 10 races as seen in TES:O for the Alliance War grand campaign idea, as many races as would be appropriate for other campaigns. (The Alliance War is probably the most lore appropriate time for the conquer all of Tamriel part of the game, with the lesser victory condition being ruling Cyrodiil and being the leading race your respective faction, with the (now playable) Tharn/Mannimarco led imperial's aim being to survive the attacks of the three groups)

It does depend on the setting as to what races to include in any given campaign - for example, with the Skyrim Civil War idea you would have nords/imperials on one side and just nords on the other, with very few other race units included in lore appropriate positions. (Thalmor units affiliated to the Empire, khajiit trade caravans, stuff of that nature)

As said in the earlier post, there are hundreds of potential ideas, no need to limit them to just the normal 10 races.

Thelastdovah wrote:It depends on the settings and the wars. But overall, i would love to see that as battles are rarely done well in TES games. TES Lore is full of wars so they would be able to set it away from the 5 games to avoid conflict. I believe that the next great war would be perfect for this as well as the Oblivion Crisis and so forth.

No need to set it away from the 5 games at all, it's simply a different way of playing the scenario as it was seen in the main game.

There's two ES TW mods in the works. (one about Vvardenfell in the late 3rd Era and another taking place in the 4th)

And it doesn't really matter when it takes place, since TW has always been about rewriting history, not following it.

Xarnac the Conqueror wrote:There's two ES TW mods in the works. (one about Vvardenfell in the late 3rd Era and another taking place in the 4th)

And it doesn't really matter when it takes place, since TW has always been about rewriting history, not following it.

It does matter when the game takes place, since unlike Earth history, Tamriel does have points in time when a grand campaign would be lore appropriate.

And the TW series is somewhere in between the two, especially with the newer games, although I can see what you mean.


ETA - Download links?

CBR JGWRR wrote:

Xarnac the Conqueror wrote:There's two ES TW mods in the works. (one about Vvardenfell in the late 3rd Era and another taking place in the 4th)

And it doesn't really matter when it takes place, since TW has always been about rewriting history, not following it.

It does matter when the game takes place, since unlike Earth history, Tamriel does have points in time when a grand campaign would be lore appropriate.

And the TW series is somewhere in between the two, especially with the newer games, although I can see what you mean.


ETA - Download links?

No, it doesn't really matter. You could play in the shadow of any great war and totally avoid it, thus rewriting history which is what TW (and an ES TW) has always been about. A world war could be about to erupt from ES lore or history, but in a TW you can totally rewrite it. Almost every Era and sub sections of an Era are filled with fighting and wars, so it really wouldn't matter if you put it in the 2nd Era, the 3rd or 4th etc. A game of this magnitude would cover hundreds of years anyway. If you're looking for following lore and history to the tee, then you are not looking for a TW medium as the basis for a hypothetical ES strategy game.

Xarnac the Conqueror wrote:No, it doesn't really matter. You could play in the shadow of any great war and totally avoid it, thus rewriting history which is what TW (and an ES TW) has always been about.

But that would be a waste. Just because the player might decide "actually, lets be friends rather than go for continental wide war" doesn't mean the game should just be chucked anywhere with no regard for historical accuracy.

What TW games do is give a historical setting for the game - medieval europe, the rise of Rome, etc, with ongoing events within that occur as they did, if not that accurately. (one example - Crusades in medieval Total War, they never work out historically correct. )

CBR JGWRR wrote:

Xarnac the Conqueror wrote:No, it doesn't really matter. You could play in the shadow of any great war and totally avoid it, thus rewriting history which is what TW (and an ES TW) has always been about.

But that would be a waste. Just because the player might decide "actually, lets be friends rather than go for continental wide war" doesn't mean the game should just be chucked anywhere with no regard for historical accuracy.

What TW games do is give a historical setting for the game - medieval europe, the rise of Rome, etc, with ongoing events within that occur as they did, if not that accurately. (one example - Crusades in medieval Total War, they never work out historically correct. )

TW isn't about historical accuracy, it's about historical authenticity (Jack Lusted's own words). You could have it set in the middle of wide spread peace, or during a time that really has no lore associated with it. Every single campaign ever played, out of any TW, has never followed history to the tee (even people that try to play it that way) and an ES TW would be no different. Considering we have dragon breaks on Nirn and not on Earth, it makes even more sense that it wouldn't matter. In the end, the lore event timeline would change with every new game, just like it has in every other TW. The lore and history would be there for flavor, not as a guideline of how to play and what to do.

While an ES TW would obviously have to have a time frame, that time frame doesn't really matter. If you are talking about following history and lore events, you're not talking about a TW game.

TW is about Bretons successfully assassinating Tiber, ending the Third Empire before it even starts. TW is about your Redguard agent successfully harassing Gortwog's Minat tribe until death, resulting in no Orsinium for the Orcs. TW is about Khajiit and Bosmer allying and taking over the first Aldmeri Dominion. TW is about not agreeing to the WGC and making Hammerfell a vassal. TW is about the Dunmer successfully repelling an Argonian invasion and re instituting slavery.

Xarnac the Conqueror wrote: TW isn't about historical accuracy, it's about historical authenticity. You could have it set in the middle of wide spread peace, or during a time that really has no lore associated with it. Every single campaign ever played, out of any TW, has never followed history to the tee (even people that try to play it that way) and an ES TW would be no different. Considering we have dragon breaks on Nirn and not on Earth, it makes even more sense that it wouldn't matter. In the end, the lore event timeline would change with every new game, just like it has in every other TW.

While an ES TW would obviously have to have a time frame, that time frame doesn't really matter. If you are talking about following history and lore events, you're not talking about a TW game.

The lack of following history is mostly because of compromises for gameplay's sake, and because at times real people made some epic fails at generalship, both on Earth and Nirn, which would just be daft to replicate.

What I'm talking about is a lore relevant setting for the game, in which case just dumping the main campaign anywhere is a bit daft.

The setting doesn't matter, lore wise. History wouldn't be followed anyway. TWs that focus on small time lines and linear events fail anyway, which is why Napoleon was so criticised. The larger the time frame, the less the lore events matter - since it would only be a small part of the campaign anyway. In a TW where your Elven leaders can live through the entire game, the time frame would have to be vast regardless, something along the lines of Rome I.

Let's change subject a while and think instead of setting, how would the units would be handled. Just imagine a fight between mages and battlemage in one side against archers and berserkers on the other. All of this in the slow motion the series have. This is what come in my mind and me me post that gif above.

There would definitely have to be hero units, like in Shogun. Some of which would only be one person/unit. Not only would that fit into the fantasy zeitgeist of extreme power and incredible heroes, but would be quite epic watching your level 9 Divayth Fyr Hero single handedly demolish a third of a stack of Bosmer skirmishers.

You could have rebels like in Medieval, but instead of them always being humanoid, they could also be different creatures/Daedra etc. This would give you the ES feel that would be missing with just a bunch of humanoid enemy spawns. This would allow you to have an agent called an Adventurer, which would get (some) traits and retainers of Daedric origin, i.e. your Orsimer Adventurer has gained the Mace of Molag Bal as a retainer. He would work similar to the Veterans in Shogun II Fall of the Samurai - they could harass enemies and rebel/brigand stacks, challenge others to single combat and sabotage buildings.

Xarnac the Conqueror wrote:The setting doesn't matter, lore wise. History wouldn't be followed anyway. TWs that focus on small time lines and linear events fail anyway, which is why Napoleon was so criticised. The larger the time frame, the less the lore events matter - since it would only be a small part of the campaign anyway. In a TW where your Elven leaders can live through the entire game, the time frame would have to be vast regardless, something along the lines of Rome I.

I enjoyed the little campaigns myself. Just needed more of them IMO...

Bear in mind that to get a timescale long enough that an elven leader wouldn't live for the game could require the entire of the 1st era or more, which is beyond the timescales of all the TW games added together.


Hero units would have to be included, whether in the way say, Lord Naarifin would be (Altmeri general during the Great War, executed after the Battle of the Red Ring) or in the way the player character from the main games would be - as a single badass person.

Rebels wouldn't really work in the context of TES unless as seen in the form of bandits like in the main RPGs. Daedra require summoners to enter Tamriel (Except during the Mythic and 2nd eras, in the main) so whole bands of daedra would be unlikely except as guardians of their respective Daedric Prince.

Which is another thing which could be included really - impacts of Aedric and Daedric influence extend far beyond just artifacts afterall.

CBR JGWRR wrote:

Xarnac the Conqueror wrote:
Rebels wouldn't really work in the context of TES unless as seen in the form of bandits like in the main RPGs. Daedra require summoners to enter Tamriel (Except during the Mythic and 2nd eras, in the main) so whole bands of daedra would be unlikely except as guardians of their respective Daedric Prince.

Not really. The rebels would work as mobs and there's plenty of Daedra running around (Morrowind was full of them, and especially if this takes place before the OC - though you could still have them in the 4th Era) and definitely enough to make a brigand/rebel stack.

I wasn't saying they couldn't be in, just less of them and only in certain regions.

They could also be summonable units for a daedra worshipping empire, don't need to be limited to guardians and small numbers of wandering groups. Look at the Ayleids for an example.


I suppose I want something that's correct in Lore terms, which may or may not be good for gameplay...

Yeah, TWs have always been about Game play>Lore. It's why you get so many unrealistic or simply wrong units in the series.

Xarnac the Conqueror wrote:Yeah, TWs have always been about Game play>Lore. It's why you get so many unrealistic or simply wrong units in the series.

Yeah...

Still, if it's something that could be done right it should be, and with Tamriel, ignoring the loss of weaponry over the RPGs, there hasn't been much change that would affect the way the game would be played.

I've always loved the idea of a TES RTS. I think it would be very cool if it was produced properly (and ofcourse it wouldn't detract from the SPRG's). Now I know this thread was for TW, but this wouldn't happen outside of a mod, so that being said I'll throw in my two-piece for a general strategy game.

What I'd like to see is more of a LOTR:BFME 2, or Halos Wars type games, or at least a game that allowed buildings. Total War is cool and all, but from my understanding isn't all just battle? In the sense there's no buildings present, or at least ones you can build?

I always loved just building bases in BFME 2 in remote areas, such as an Island or tucked behind a mountain for defense purposes it just helps to make the game that much more strategic.

In a TES game, the one thing I'd fear is an overflow of the 10 races. In the sense that they'd build up each of the races as a separate faction and leave little room for some of TES's more interesting choices. Why play as all 10 races each with probably little difference between them, that just clog up the game's resources. I mean would you really want to see all of the other races duke it out in some political struggle with little of the trademark 'supernatural' related to TES.

It'd be much better if they did 3-4 each with different races between them. I mean for example if they did 3 you could have the Dominion, Empire, and Morrowind,and only those three in a specific area. But it doesn't mean the other races would be gone. Each faction could have an 'Orc' tent or something where they could recruit Orc mercenaries (they're nomadic to begin with anyway.)

Empire could have auxiliary units, so in addition to have imperial soldiers you could also train a squad of Redguard/Nordic/Dunmer/etc. Legionaries. Where as Morrowind could employ Argonian slave-warriors as a cheap disposable unit.

The beauty of condensing the races would be to open other options. We could then have a Falmer/Undead/Dragon Cult faction. And if at the very least we couldn't play as them they could be enemies.

You know how in some RTS's there are those common enemies littered around the map that serve no purpose other than to divert attention to or provide an obstacle to you. They could have that expanded in such a game. Where before you launched an invasion you had to deal with them first, or you could build an alliance with the other 'race' faction because they're too great a menace.

For example dealing with such enemies could be like a series of radiant quests. After building a set amount of structures a lesser Dragon attacks and once defeated you need to track down it's shrine which could be on the top of a mountain but before it is a Nordic Ruin, so you're men would have to clear it of Draugr fight a dragon priest and destroy the shrine and kill the greater dragon.

If they made a game that resembled BFME2, and at least avoided the race thing then I'd be very happy to see such a game produced.

In TW, you do a lot of building. It's turn-based with real-time battles. In these turns, you construct walls, sewers, theatres, barracks, stables etc. for your cities to unlock new units, increase profits, restore public order etc. You can also send diplomats to secure alliances, trade routes and military assistance and also demand homage or land. That's a pretty simplified overlook, though.

Real Time Simulator vs Turn based games - Total War are the latter, except (optionally, as they can be auto-resolved based on a simulation) the battles, which are done Real Time. There's no building on the battlefield like in a RTS.

There are buildings on the battlefield if you're fighting in a city, though.

Yeah, and damage done to a building in the battle mode is carried over to the campaign map where it's fixed.