Online campaign: preferred basic army system

[Magyar Khan]

its just a poll... its even hardly likely that your input will be implemented in any way, its just a poll

-------------------------------------------------------
1) in the most ideal situation it would be nice if u could run around with an/your own army in an online campaign. although this requires some tools, it also requires some workload, buying, refreshing and selling of the units and some handy minds of people to control the software and its process.

advantage: most realistic towards sp campaign
disadvantage: most complicated with the present available tools
disadvantage: game can be result in a cat and mouse game, since armies might be very unbalanced and teh weak will avoid teh obvious stronger army.

2) a more abstract method of the campaign could be that each side spents their income over the armies they have. these "bags of florins" move around and when battle occur the general select the units he needs to do a battle.

advantage: a bit less realistic than 1)
disadvantage: game can still result in cat and mouse game, since armies might be very unbalanced and teh weak will avoid teh obvious stronger army.

remmebre people can press all rout in a game and avoid the battle and results as well, it dependsa ofcourse how u deal with the routed troops.

3) an other method is that armies move around with a certain unitselection. when battle occure a maprating is used to create fair and challenging battles where the balance can be tipped by having a better armyselection suited for a certain map.

advantage: fair and challenging battles since battles are equal as possible
disadvantage: unrealistic

this one is close to every other campaign we have done before with the "green cards".

[Gregoshi]

I like #1 Magyar. I don't necessarily see the "cat & mouse" issue as a problem. That just means the strategic part of the campaign is as important as the tactical. Getting the right army to the right place at the right time is all part of it.

There is that "small" issue of getting the necessary tools to implement such a campaign. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

General comment regarding online campaigns: these campaigns seem like they could be fun. However, I think I'd run into problems with the necessary time commitment needed. I may be able to battle one week and then unable to another week. Therefore I won't risk disappointing my side and possibly messing up the campaign by participating in something in which I am not sure I can make the necessary commitment. Being in a pool of "part time" generals would make online campaign participation more attractive to me.

[Magyar Khan]

well thats the thing as well. we have a campaigntool able of refreshing selling and buying units but ogh my, its complicated for some to get things working.

it would be nice to have a system where the activity of a side is not a part of teh rules of its outcome. liek retreating to a castle will give u at least 1 week siege time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif to spent with your family

[baz]

Ultimately we want a online campaign to be decided in the 3d battles, thats why i think that the online battles have to be balanced to a certain extent. if we have a campaign where one side can field an army with double the florins of the other, is there any point in playing that battle? the advantage should be only slight and i think no.3 is the best opyion to go with...with this system battles can be made fair (in theory) and hence a lot more interesting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Magyar Khan]

well we had 3 as well, tho we might finish teh tools for 1 as well.

think of moving real armies around. after each battle u can refresh broken units, u loose the units smaller than 10 men, and u can buy new units where u pay 10%, 20% extra and so on for every unit u buy more than 1, 2 and so on.

the costs of these new units will be substracted from the empires treasury.

most valuable units will be rewarded with an additional shield and/or weapon upgrade.

[baz]

it is nice in an ideal world but would it lead to armies having no chance of winning? due to armies having different values?

[tootee]

2) for me.

[Kraellin]

magy,

let's say we had 3 factions in an online campaign type setting. it was just one map of the entire world. you could walk this map from end to end, given enough time, but it would be HUGE. this is the tactical map, not the campaign map.

now, let's set up 3 leaders for the factions. let's say it's you, amp and kocmoc, 3 acknowledged leaders on the field, each as the king of one faction.

each of you could then pick permanent lieutenants, say a certain number of them, maybe 4 to 6 each. each of those, in turn, could pick their own lieutenants and so on down the line. this sets up a command structure within each faction.

the game runs in real time. players come and go. there are castles on the map. artillery can be moved or built on the spot.

faction leaders get X number of units to control, bought from their kingdom's money. the first lieutenants get fewer units max, that they can control. as you go down the ranks, each layer of commander gets fewer and fewer units he/she can have until you hit the lowest rank which can only control his own single unit.

if the map is laid out in 'zones', as most HUGE maps are for games like this, you dont get lag until massive numbers show up in one zone. by controlling how many units each layer of commander gets, you can also control the lag somewhat.

everyone plays on the same map. there is only one HUGE map. castles are owned by the faction leader. the faction leader determines how florins get distributed. re-inforcements are simply other players. replenishing a damaged unit is done by going back to one's castle and if the faction leader has set things up right and is making enough money, your troops get replenished.

the game is more or less endless. or, you could set up specific goals and when those are met, the game reboots and you start over again. players could betray the faction leader by joining the other side openly or by just working covertly. battle records would be kept like CA said it might do on a web site.

and when i say a HUGE map, i mean HUGE, as in, it would take you an hour or more by fast horse to get across the entire thing. you could also make it wrap-around, like amp suggested, so no red zones.

you could also have more than one castle per faction, rivers, huge woods, mountain ranges and other interesting tactical features and barriers.

when a player logs out, he/she shld do it from the castle and those units he was controlling are now available for someone else to control. when he/she logs in, they come in AT the castle, inside it, pick up new or available units, get their marching orders and head on out.

and for a really nice effect, a main battle room could be set up in a special room off the foyer that would show who 'owns' what currently. this wouldnt show unit positions, just ownership of lands or castles or both.

and, if you wanted a bit more detail and play, perhaps your sub-leaders could control/own their own castles and receive florins and dole them out. you could even set up buildings that would allow this or that unit to be purchased and these would cost florins to build and maintain.

i simply used 3 factions as an example. you could just as easily do 6 or 8 or 12, or whatever. do it by clans if you like and maybe even allow a few ronin castles.

the downside is the potential for serious lag. castle blah-blah is being sacked and everyone rushes to the fray. this is why it might be better to have more factions involved, since faction A might be involved fighting faction B and not give a hoot when faction C is fighting faction D. thus, things would tend to get spread out a bit more.

lots of ways to do this stuff. your topic and remarks inspired this one.

K.

[AMPage]

For the poll i voted for 1. It may be a bit complicated, but extra things you can do always helps keep interest longer. For this game it seems it would be best to start off with a simple campaign and build on to it, but i'd rather see it givin all at once.

Kraellin,

That would be awesome to have and i'd pay top dollar to have it.

Just like those MMORPG games with the zones, i like it. A world you fight over, having the wrap around, all playing out on a tatical map.

So, to defeat another faction you'd have to take all there castles? If so, that could be one of the goals to play by, having to siege a certain number of castles.

Maybe you should work one out with CA or make a game of your own cause you got some really good ideas. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Magyar Khan]

well the campaigntool is close to ready, for upload this week. like previous versions in STW it allows u to read a logfile, refresh broken armies, sell them and buy new troops. it calculates the total costs which could be used in any sort of campaign/league.

[Kraellin]

amp,

yup, mtw meets air warrior, or mtw meets asheron's call, or maybe a closer relative would be mtw meets wwii online ;)

yeah, i'm a frustrated game designer who never learned to code. i've tried for years to convince game companies that they need to separate game design from coding. it's a distinct function. my experience with coders who think they're game designers....well, no comment. ok, that's a gross generality, i admit. i have seen some who combine both talents, but it's pretty rare in my experience.

as for the idea and the game goals, i'm sure you could work out several, for i see in you the frustrated 'idea man' also ;) we're like pitch men in a hollywood studio, selling out ideas for the latest, greatest movie to the hollywood producer, cept we're giving it away free. lol. i never was a very good salesman ;)

ok, i've hijacked magy's thread enough.

K.