FPS MTW???

**Knight_Yellow** · 01-06-2003, 10:00

I was playing Battlefield 1942 a min ago (HERESY&#33

and out of 60 of us 40 or so where using knives only witch was fun.

then it hit me if u can get 60 ppl in a highly detailed map without lag why not a hundred or more on a smaller map with only fields etc.

then u could make one guy the general and he gets the usual interface but the others get to be knights and archers etc.

id pay good money for that

*listens for Gil running to the phone to call the big dogs*

wat do u all think?

**Quid** · 01-06-2003, 10:15

so each would play as an individual in a free for all or in teams...seems thoroughly resonable to me...good one...think that should somehow be doable. would be great fun to be an archer...hahaha

...must think that through...

Quidster

**Quid** · 01-06-2003, 10:17

...and I will not change my signiture either until i am allowed to play the Swiss...

**Swoosh So** · 01-06-2003, 10:19

Dident you know rome totalwar includes an fps from the generals point of view?

**Knight_Yellow** · 01-06-2003, 12:14

does it

*Cracks a jig*

but can u personaly control him like ride into battle chopping heads???

but i want

200 ppl if possble slpit two ways

100 in each team 1 person from the team is the commander whom orders the men around etc. and the other 99 follow his orders but move in small groups of ten or so.

the only real prob i can think of is how would u stop ppl from freelancing and breaking off etc.

i think that since we can get 60 on bf1942 if we down the map size and amount of terrain then it should work.

perhaps even using the half engine thats a easy to mod one aint it and probably easy to run since its so old.

if any mod maker with enough balls wants a go then email me at brimar121212@hotmail.com

**Gregoshi** · 01-06-2003, 16:28

Some people have trouble getting 4 people together for a MTW battle. I shutter to think what that foyer would look like:

Gregoshi: Come join my 100v100 game Rome wasn't built in a day.

Knight_Yellow: Neither is your game ;-)

Gregoshi: I need 25 more attackers and 41 more defenders.

Knight_Yellow: Nah, I hate that Hannibal map.

Gregoshi: #pressgang Knight_Yellow=defender

Knight_Yellow: Nooooooooo

**Knight_Yellow** · 01-06-2003, 18:13

well u see thats the buty of it u start out with 20 ppl etc. then if more join they appear as reinforcements.

seriously though i wanna try this for real.

only prob is that i dont know how to mod sos i gotta recruit ppl.

any1 who helps will get due credit.

**JeromeGrasdyke** · 01-06-2003, 20:03

Anyone remember Rune? That had only Viking-style weapons, and was quite fun in a first-person-shooter kind of way. But with 100's of people - as in a TW game - it would quickly turn into a free-for-all, as people all go off and do their own thing. Coordinating a formation would be very tricky indeed...

But I believe BF1942 was built on the Tribes 2 engine, which is available from the guys at Garage Games for a mere 100 dollars a pop, so somebody with time on their hands might be tempted to have a go at this. Not me though... I am fully occupied elsewhere

**Acronym** · 01-06-2003, 21:32

I've been imagining the same type of game, but instead of actually people controlling each soldier(good luck finding even a 50 man army vs another), the ai is used instead. But it would be cool to manually go into fps and control any unit you want to. Or go into the commanders perspective and issue orders from there.

I hope in R:TW CA at least gives us a FPS camera view, which would improve the gameplay IMHO. I read on one of the R:TW sites that you can control units via traditional TW style or RTS style, so maybe it is a possibility.

**Knight_Yellow** · 01-06-2003, 23:35

if u look further up ull see that swooshoo said u can see ur generals veiw of the battle.

but i realy want this bad.

bad enought to actualy work on it myself bearing in mind id use the ut2003 engine witch means SUICIDE for anything more than 30 ppl max.

Hmmm or maybe i/we could use the Jedi knight II engine its lightsabre battles r cool so it would probably be pretty easy to turn light footed jedi into knights weilding massive swords and axes, but at a mutch slower chopping/weilding rate, obviously a knight aint as fast as jedi.

**GilJaysmith** · 01-07-2003, 01:12

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Jan. 06 2003,09:28)]Gregoshi: #pressgang Knight_Yellow=defender

That's one of the best suggestions for a multiplayer feature I've ever seen...

**Catiline** · 01-07-2003, 01:35

THe FPS version of #pressgang should of course involve a sack and a few bits of 2 by 4

**Gregoshi** · 01-07-2003, 05:25

Knight, this dream of yours sound suspiciously like Sim Total War mentioned in the Sim bashing thread. I knew you were a closet Sim Scotsman.

**Hold Steady** · 01-07-2003, 13:06

Yeah I could picture that (100 men each commanding 10): Listen, Who's gonna be the general and who's gonna be the front row of the spearmen unit we devised of pinning them' Chivalric Knights charging at us right now? Eheuh.. rough choice.. Waah, I have no preferences in this matter

would like to be in the game longer than 8 seconds though...

**Gregoshi** · 01-07-2003, 14:43

Look at it this way HS, lasting 8 seconds is a perfect bull ride in rodeo. The rest is just a matter of style.

**Knight_Yellow** · 01-07-2003, 18:31

yeah well in Battlefield 1942 when we all battle with knives in groups of 20v20 its a rush cos every1 wants to be into combat first so i guess all my MTW buddies r frightend....

must be my scottish blood wanting WAR

**Gregoshi** · 01-08-2003, 06:14

You can have your knives. Give me a good machine gun, a strong bunker with plenty of ammo, food, and infantry, armour and air support.

**Knight_Yellow** · 01-08-2003, 08:07

luxurys of war are not always granted

cool i think i just made one of those famous war qoutes...

earlier today in yellars online bf1942 game:

ermmm yeah well a few of my enemy's had bunkers etc. and were sniping my base so i jumped in a jeep drove up to their bunker got out and knived their snipers.

so there.

**Hold Steady** · 01-08-2003, 11:18

What's wrong with shooting them, you have this bloodlover vice or just out of ammo?

**Knight_Yellow** · 01-08-2003, 12:55

well my pistol was full but i wanted to make them suffer so i stabbed them from the legs up.

**Hold Steady** · 01-08-2003, 13:14

o

boy, I bet your not in favor of CA not including movies anymore. Imagine the Inquisition tracks... BTW, does 1942 feature flamethrowers?

**Knight_Yellow** · 01-08-2003, 14:55

sadly no but its got jeepz

jeepz r so cool and fun to drive

and funner to run ppl over with them

**Hold Steady** · 01-08-2003, 15:28

I can actually hear you say that with a scottisch accent

**Knight_Yellow** · 01-08-2003, 16:23

how bout this then

BF1942: Aye tis a braw wee gem.

translation
yes its a good little game

**TosaInu** · 01-08-2003, 21:13

Yes, I would like that. But I would replace 1 knight with unitcommander (1 unit controlled by 1 player). The unitcommander is not 1 sprite on the field, but any man in the unit. Though you could of course have 1 man/unit for commander, the unit remains under player control when the commander dies, but performs less good.

-16 units of 60 men, make some of an army, 100 lone knights don't. It's 'easier' to get a 16v16 going than a 100 vs 100.
-One can die 60 times (60 arrows are needed to kill 60 knights) in the same game before being 'out' (reinforcements could do something too, but this should be optional).

Unitcommanders have a close 3th person view of their own unit, the commander can see more of the battlefield (by jumping from 1 unitcamera to the other like you can do now). The commander will have a unit himself too. This unit should boost morale of nearby friendly units. The general should maybe have some limited armycontrol (formations, army marching).

Thread: FPS MTW???

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions