Sure, I've seen few WW2 threads now and then popping up, but more often I see people asking for a game encompassing wars from the whole first half of the 20th century. I see no reason for apprehensions towards a WW2 game, after all there isn't much support for one in the first place. What do you guys think? Could they do it? I'm sure there are a lot of minor things that would make this game impossible to do, but I'm only focused on the main problems that there would be. A lot of people didn't like the Alexander Expansion because of how short it was (40-50 years I believe) so a game with a 6-7 year time span would incur wrath. World War 2 lasted for about 6-7 years, which is not good for a Total War type of game. Time period too short) In Total War, we're used to hundreds of years to build our empires and to build armies, buildings, etc. I don't even want to imagine a Total War that attempts Planes. Hell, just look at Rome 2 which is buggy as hell despite there being no guns in it. It's just impossible to do these many weapons for a Total War game without breaking a LOT of stuff. FOTS had some good gun mechanics, but we're talking about Machine guns, tanks, planes, and all sort of machinery. Total War + Guns = Failure) This has been shown with Empire and Napoleon(albeit Napoleon was a LOT better, but that wasn't saying much). The Total War community as a whole would devolve to an even worse state than Call of Duty and a lot of sickos would be running around the forums spreading their ideas about how their race is superior, jews suck, etc. If you made a game about taking control of the axis/allied powers, they'd go berserk and immediately buy the game. Supremacists) Face it, there are a lot of these psychos out there.
This would be bad for publicity and it would make many people who normally would buy a total war game not buy it due to the negative publicity. By making a game about this, you would most likely incur the wrath of the media for allowing a gamer to control the Nazis and try to take over the world in a simulator. Offending people) There are still a significant amount of people who fought in WWII, and there are also holocaust survivors along with their children, grandchildren, etc. The game would consist of very small battles if you wanted to use strategy (50 men max) and it's not the Total War many people want. You didn't line them up and have them charge (with the exception of some VERY rare battles). World War 2 had battles which lasted days and had many men, but there wasn't a strategy beyond sending your men out and hoping they win the battle. World War 2 consisted of a lot of what would be regarded as "skirmishes". Strategy) The main concept of Total War is battlefield strategy in which you command massive armies and outwit your opponent. Here is a list of the problems that a World War 2 game would have. This seems like a good idea.until you look into what the game would be like if they actually made it. Some people have been suggesting this and World War 1 as viable options for the next Total War (after Arena, that is). The time period of World War 2 is very interesting and is fresh in our minds considering it only happened about 75 years ago. 2K A Total War Saga: Thrones of BritanniaĪlright, let's just admit it.844 A Total War Saga: Fall of the Samurai.