Multiplayer Battle Modes

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

Quote Last Man Standing

Standard Game rules apply. When all of the enemy troops have left the battlefield, either from death or routing, then you win. If all of you and your allies are killed or routed, then you lose.

Capture The Command Tent

Each participating king starts with a command tent campsite inside their deployment area. The battle is won when one side ( attackers or defenders ) owns all of the command tents on the battlefield. You take a command tent by stationing the required amount of men inside the area. This figure is set up in the front end when the game is created. You must remove all enemy forces from the enemy command tent area AND have the required number of men inside the area to successfully take the command tent.

You can also win this battle by obliterating the enemy - if they aren't on the battlefield then they can't defend their command tent.

King Of The Hill

King Of The Hill battles are unique in that victory isn't decided by the death or routing of one particular side. The battles are points based, and you earn points by dominating the circle of flags set up in the centre of the map. The only person able to claim the hill is a general, so he must be protected at all costs.

Capturing the hill is similar to that of capturing a command tent. You must have more allied troops inside the hill than enemy troops AND an allied general must be inside the hill as well. You can take possession of the hill away from an enemy by having more troops than he does inside the hill, but you can't claim it as your own without a general.

When a unit is completely wiped out or routs off the field, it is resurrected in the status it was in at the start of the battle and brought on after a certain amount of time as a reinforcement. This is true of all units including the general's, so if your general dies it's not the end of the game - you can still bring him back to life.

King of the hill battles are points based. You gain 1 point for every 10 seconds you spend inside the hill, and an additional point for every 10 seconds your General spends inside the hill. The game can be set up in the front end in 2 ways - either point limited or time limited. Point limited games end when one side (attackers or defenders) reaches the target point tally ( i.e. first to 40 points ). Time limited games end when a clock runs down, and victory is awarded to the side with the most points at the end of it. In the event of a tie, the victory is awarded to the defenders.[/QUOTE]

Not finalised and subject to change I believe.

[Kraellin]

k. these 3 are the same we have in we/mi, last man standing, capture the honjin and king of the hill. you're still missing assassinate the general and free for all but thanks for the confirmation of the 3 :)

there is one other i'd like to see in this game, or maybe two. first, instead of each general having a honjin or camp, i'd like to see one camp total for each side, regardless of the number of players. so, in a 3v3 there would only be 1 camp per side. this would have some interesting tactical play in that do you send 1, 2 or 3 of your armies (in a 3v3) to attack the enemy's camp, or do you leave some back for defense. it could be a real cat and mouse game. the current style of capture the honjin is one, bugged, and two, difficult because each general must play both offense and defense.

the other style that has some possibilities might be a true capture the flag mode where you have to cross enemy lines, capture the enemy flag and bring it back to your side. could be fun on some of these bigger maps.

and, now that i think about it, i made a map for we/mi that had 2 castles. this was difficult to do because of the rules for castles in we/mi, but it would be pretty cool for mtw if there could be at least 2 castles, one for each opposing side. heck, it might even be fun if one side got 2 castles. but with one castle on each side, you'd almost have to have mobile siege engines, at least some. surely history has some examples of opposing castles facing each other. and imagine a free for all where each general got his own castle. or, how about a capture the honjin game with each camp being inside a castle, or maybe a king of the hill where the flags were inside a castle.

CA, i know time is almost up and yer in beta now, so i'm not really expecting any of this, but it's not too early to be thinking about the expansion ;)

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[LittleGrizzly]

that mans a genuis all listen in awe to his wisdom

p.s no that isnt sarcasm they're good ideas

[Aelfred Magna]

judging from the text in the demo files, it seems like there should be some way to edit the objectives for a given map, so that Kraellin's suggestions (I agree with Grizzly, they're brilliant) could be implemented. Anybody have any idea how to do this?

[LittleGrizzly]

also forgot to add cheers darkmoor_dragon

[Wavesword]

Opposing castles? Ahhh that brings back pleasant memories of Facing Worlds. (Polishes sniper rifle).

[Nelson]

Isn't that a UT map? Two big towers? CTF I've played that. Lot's of sniping. Yeah, I remember.

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

Advanced teamgame:

-free distribution of gold among teammembers: cav 8,000, spears 2,000, missiles 3,000, shocks 5,000.
-a shared deployment zone
-1 player plays the role of the chief commander, gives a huge moraleboost. That player has only 1 unit, so he has enough time to coordinate. Optional 'unrestrict' camera for that player, at least be able to see everything friendly units could see. Allow the commander to groupmanoeuvre the entire combined army.
When the chiefcommander dies it's not game over (like the silly assassinate and halve the enemy mode) but it will be terrible difficult to turn the tide.

-Each player controls 1 unit (close 3th person). As the game would allow 8*16 units, this would allow a 64v64. This would cause some problems, but a 64 player RTCW is possible too. Instead of a normal 1v1, 16v16 could be played. 16 players must cooperate closely to act like 1 army.

Teamgames.
STW allows 2 teams, up to 4v4. Why not 4 teams of 2?



------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Kraellin]

ah tosa,

i really like the idea about a single unit chief commander for multiplayer. that would be pretty slick. you'd be freed up to type in commands to your other commanders (or use roger wilco). very nice. i'd add one clause to this though....if he dies, he cant type any more to give directions. something like roger wilco would overcome this, but still, it would be interesting. this would give clan and country a whole new meaning.

and the camera restrict thing brings to mind something else i've been toying with that i'm not quite sure how to implement... battles often used to be quite large and a commander often couldnt see what was going on in a certain area. in real life they often used runners/messengers to and from the front lines for information and the sending of orders. it would be interesting to simulate this, somehow, in the TW series. we do have the restricted camera option which works pretty well but with maps getting bigger and units possibly being even more spread out in games now, it might be interesting to upgrade this system to something more realistic. it would introduce a time factor into battles where messages are being sent back and forth about positions, strength, tactical deployment and so on. not sure how to do this yet, but an interesting idea for the future.

yes, we've discussed the options for running a single unit for a single real player before. tosa and i talk about this stuff on icq fairly frequently so i dont remember if this was his idea or mine, but regardless, it's a good one. CA/DT has had an 8 player max throughout the series so i'm pretty sure the network code would have to be re-worked, but i think it would be a hoot to be able to play as a single unit in a 64 player game. i think this would also lead to bigger and better clans in the community and bigger and better games online. imagine the rage clan, 32 members strong, going up against the takiyama clan, also 32 members strong and all in the same game! now that would be a riot. then add in the single commander idea and sub commanders in control of the cavalry or the missiles/artillery and so on, and you've got yourself a pretty slick game.

target, longjohn2, graham, michael, richie, stick your nose in here and comment. what's the possibility for the future for something like this? darkmoor, maybe you could ask? this one truly stirs my blood. i get fumble fingered trying to keep 16 units going where i want them and talk to my allies and try and figure out what the enemy is doing, but give me 1 or 2 units and 31 or 63 allies and woohoo, i'm fightin!

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[Thane Talain MacDonald]

Now that would be cool. Everybody manning one unit acting as a group.

And most of them failing miserably http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif