GameSpot Designer Diary: Mission Design

[Myrddraal]

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/m...pslot;action;1

More details on the missions

[A. Smith]

The interesting part is

If the player makes an agreement with another faction to carry out a certain action in the future (for example, attack another faction), this agreement will become a mission, and players will receive their rewards when the action is completed.

that means there will be no more "helping out" deals wich cna be fulfilled by sending one unit of peasants.

[Martok]

Hmm. No new information from what we've seen elsewhere, although I'm glad they've confirmed missions can be assigned by guilds after all. (I know there's been some confusion on that issue.)

I continue to be intrigued by missions assigned by individuals from another faction. I wonder what benefit(s) they will have if you carry them out.

[Kourutsu]

What where all those gray avatars in the first picture? The ones near London.

[Polemists]

I don't know but I agree. I like this I mean there's so many sources to get missons from. It also looks like they've tested it enough to make sure it dosn't get cluttered or that every single mission is not a simply blockade. I'm curious what sort things you have to do to gain certain guilds. They mention ways of governing your region, so does that mean like if I raise taxes super high the templar chapter house will come, because they'd have a nice chapter house paid for by the nation?

[Tamur]

Very odd. This is a repeat of a dev diary that went up on the .com on August 25th. Must be a slow week in the Marketing department.

[Peasant Phill]

What where all those gray avatars in the first picture? The ones near London.

That were rebel factions. AFAIK Flanders (together with a lot of other provinces) starts out as rebel.

[Bob the Insane]

This sounds good...

I liked the senate mission system in RTW for the flavour it gave... Though the fact that most of the missions seemed to be based on cleaning up the messes of the other two Roman factions and pushing you into wars did grate after a while. Though that was all part of the flavour when yu think about it..

The attack and enemy thing turning into a mission...

I wonder if the same thing applies to the AI if you convince them to do the same thing...

[Soulflame]

Odd. I was told on the preview event that guilds could influence the type of mission that you would get, but not be a source themselves. I even asked him twice to be sure since it seemed odd after another interview said there were.

Perhaps he meant you could only get 2 missions at the same time... 1 from guilds/nobles and 1 from the Pope? Seems odd.

Anyway, I'm personally also glad it's in. More variety and different build incentives are always nice.

[Hobot]

Hehehe, I wonder if the council of Nobles will ask you to assassinate yourself on some pretext at some point like the Senate did...That would be quite hilarious

[Little Legioner]

Personaly, i dislike this mission's. Pope, Nobles, Guilds... There are too many sides that demanding something from you. I guess it'll kill free gameplay in campaign if we approach the subject at long term.

Just an example: You decided to capture a strategically important rebel settlement named A. You prepare your troops march upon the city but whoops Nobles demand from you to capture lesser important city B. Your strategy can easily disturb by them. So, besides the Pope why should we deal with everybodies "i want this, i want that" tasks.

I know this issue from Rome. You go to north with Julii against Gaul but Senate wants go somewhere else. Just boring...

[Bob the Insane]

That is a matter of opinion I guess...

Personally I like the curve balls the game through at your strategies. Makes you think on the fly, make important decisions with consequences... I mean you can ignore the mission and follow you strategy if you think you know better and if you still win, what does it matter?

I see it as a logical step forward from having morale on the battlefield. Your troops will not do what ever you say no matter what until the death (of course their objections are limited to charging without orders or running away), so why should your Kingdom? It is not like you ,the player, do not have final say in what you do, but you are not operating in a vacum...

[doc_bean]

Personaly, i dislike this mission's. Pope, Nobles, Guilds... There are too many sides that demanding something from you. I guess it'll kill free gameplay in campaign if we approach the subject at long term.

Just an example: You decided to capture a strategically important rebel settlement named A. You prepare your troops march upon the city but whoops Nobles demand from you to capture lesser important city B. Your strategy can easily disturb by them. So, besides the Pope why should we deal with everybodies "i want this, i want that" tasks.

I know this issue from Rome. You go to north with Julii against Gaul but Senate wants go somewhere else. Just boring...

It's pretty realistic though, a king would have as much trouble with his own country as witht he enemy. If you ignore the missions/requests from your nobles they would be more likely to revolt. If the missions are better implemented than in Rome and if you can refuse mission by foreign powers it could eb interesting and add some extra flavour to the campaign...

[Lusted]

And remember you didn't actually hsve to do the missions in RTW, i often did my own thing and ignore the senate.

[SpencerH]

I disliked the missions in RTW. Too often they were in complete opposition to what I was trying to accomplish - who's leading this parade anyway, me or the "helpful" AI senate - so I usually ignored them until the senate got uppity (and crushed Rome).

This is definitely a 'wait and see' for me since implementation will be critical.

[Vlad Tzepes]

Very odd. This is a repeat of a dev diary that went up on the .com on August 25th. Must be a slow week in the Marketing department.

Yes, I agree, I read this and kept wondering - well this is not new?

But it's clear again, you can get missions form 4 entities, at least: Pope, Guilds, Nobles and other factions.

In another thread started on this topic people wondered if you could get some missions from AI characters as well - that should have added tension to the game... Such as an unhappy heir willing to get at least something from papa's empire, before he gets 100 years old, and asking some help from you, The Masters of Assasins, muahahahaha...

I like the ideea of more missions - it sounds closer to real life, where everybody wants something from you and you have to deal, one way or the other, with all of them.

[Myrddraal]

It seems to me that factions do not assign you missions directly and out of the blue. It seems that if you make a deal with a faction whereby you do something for them and they then reward you, that deal then becomes a mission. For example:

Italy wants France to attack the Swiss, sends a diplomat to ask them to attack in return for a lot of money.

If the French accept, they get a new mission saying - attack the Swiss. If they complete the mission, the money is then transfered.

[SpencerH]

It seems to me that factions do not assign you missions directly and out of the blue. It seems that if you make a deal with a faction whereby you do something for them and they then reward you, that deal then becomes a mission. For example:

Italy wants France to attack the Swiss, sends a diplomat to ask them to attack in return for a lot of money.

If the French accept, they get a new mission saying - attack the Swiss. If they complete the mission, the money is then transfered.

That sounds reasonable.

What I dont want to see is while I'm busy putting down Irish rebels that I'm supposed to start a crusade to punish the Venetians. 'Do this or else missions' should require an AI that can evaluate what I'm doing and generate appropriate tasks that enhance the variability of gameplay. Somehow I doubt that's in the cards but there's always hope.

[Myrddraal]

'Do this or else missions'

I wonder how big the 'or else' factor will be. If it's minimal then you could just ignore all missions if you wanted to. Then again, civil war and rebellions due to not taking enough notice of your nobles sounds like a cool challenge..

[Myrddraal]

hmm this seems to be the relevant section:

The player will also receive demands or requests from other factions. These can come from individuals within the faction, seeking external help to further themselves within the faction, or from the faction as a whole. If the player makes an agreement with another faction to carry out a certain action in the future (for example, attack another faction), this agreement will become a mission, and players will receive their rewards when the action is completed.

So it seems what I said above it true, but at the same time you can get missions from individuals in the faction. I'm curious.

[Mount Suribachi]

Personaly, i dislike this mission's. Pope, Nobles, Guilds... There are too many sides that demanding something from you. I guess it'll kill free gameplay in campaign if we approach the subject at long term.

Just an example: You decided to capture a strategically important rebel settlement named A. You prepare your troops march upon the city but whoops Nobles demand from you to capture lesser important city B. Your strategy can easily disturb by them. So, besides the Pope why should we deal with everybodies "i want this, i want that" tasks.

I know this issue from Rome. You go to north with Julii against Gaul but Senate wants go somewhere else. Just boring...

Not boring at all, but rather a reflection on the balancing act a medieval king had to perform to keep his throne. Merchants, nobles and the church all want their own way, and they're rarely the same....might force the player to make tough choices - which I like. Very few games ever put the player in a situation where he has to choose, and none of the options are very palatable. Planescape: Torment was one

[Denizar]

I really liked the fact that:

The player will also receive demands or requests from other factions. These can come from individuals within the faction, seeking external help to further themselves within the faction, or from the faction as a whole.

So the heir of a faction can ask us to kill - assassinate the king, so that he can take the throne. I wonder if this is going to create a relationship not just between factions but between you and certain members of the factions too. So when you kill the king of an enemy faction, and the heir who gave you the mission succeeds the throne, will he become your ally, or at least neutral to you?

[Tamur]

So when you kill the king of an enemy faction, and the heir who gave you the mission succeeds the throne, will he become your ally, or at least neutral to you?

If he doesn't change his stance toward you after asceding, then those sorts of missions will be the first ones universally ignored. If there isn't a reward beyond 2000 florins (or whatever), then some jobs simply are not worth it. To my assassins at least

[Zatoichi]

If there isn't a reward beyond 2000 florins (or whatever), then some jobs simply are not worth it. To my assassins at least

Yep, my assassins won't get out of bed for less than 3000 florins...

[Kourutsu]

I wonder what missions the Templars will give you.

"Hey! You got a few thousand florins in store if you go kill Muslims. Or establish a bank. Either one is fine."

[Polemists]

based on a set of criteria, such as the best available target for the mission, time since this mission was last given, time in the game, the mission giver's attitude to the player, and the player's current assets (for example, money, available agents, and so on). The result is that the player gets an interesting set of varied, achievable, and relevant missions throughout the course of the campaig

i like this part alot myself. It shows me that this won't be like, "Attack greece where you have no men." It sounds like your going to get missions where you have resources, and capabilites and it will make sense.

Also for those of you wanting less missons. Keep in mind that while there might be penalties, there is no pope if your orthodox. I havn't heard if there is a council of nobles if your muslim, but I'm gonna doubt it.

So if you play one of the factions of Turks, Almohad, Egypt, then your only missions will probably be ones you want.

Also with guilds keep in mind only guilds you try to attract and build a chapter house for are going to give quests. If you never establish the merchant guild, they won't have power.

I like this alot as a economic mechanism beneath the game. Allowing a organized group of any kind, merchants, explorer's what have you. Gives you benefits but also allows them to have more poltical sway. On other hand if you never let them in your sole ruler, but you don't get there benefits.

In end though I agree with others, this isn't rome, the mission givers won't suddenly start giving you worse and worse ultimatiums as they think your gaining more influence. You are already the king. I assume like most people say if your people are ready to revolt, or if you defy the pope alot reprecussions will be more harsh.

II do like the whole heir ask you to help him idea. However I would keep in mind that so far while it looks better it does not look elaborate. Though only two missions are shown. Problems with in faction might be as simple as asking you to hel them take one of there rebel towns and giving you cash for it.

[Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett]

I'm not too sure about this, it depends how necessary it is I suppose. If taking missions is necessary for maintaining a stable country then I'll be less than impressed, this is the sort of managment I really don't like doing.
I found too much of my time in Rome was distracted away from miltiary logistics by worrying about whether or not my people had adequate access to public health or enough places to worship or enough population growth, or whether I was popular with the people, or whether I was popular with the senate. I'm just not interested in that and adding the worry managing my popularity with guilds as well is not excatly what I considor an improvment to gameplay.

Hopefully I'll be able to concentrate on my military in Medieval 2, like I could in MTW and STW, and these extra factors will simply provide a greater level of control for those who really want to get their hands dirty managing a country.

I though this was a wargame?

[econ21]

I thought this was a wargame?

IMO, TW games are fairly mainstream strategy games that happen to have a battle engine far better than nearly all wargames. Straight wargames are a niche market - all but gone from the high street shelves. But the CA team include people with backgrounds in hardcore wargames and they have brought in an awful lot of wargame-type modelling.

I suspect TW - maybe like the gaming industry in general - is moving more towards producing hybrids. The missions maybe take some features from RPGs. As a keen CRPG fan, I'm cool with that. In fact, I fantasise about the time when I can "possess" my general on the battlefield, Mount and Blade style. We're not that far away from that now (I tend to give orders to other units and then fixate a little on what my general's bodyguard is doing).

[Martok]

IMO, TW games are fairly mainstream strategy games that happen to have a battle engine far better than nearly all wargames. Straight wargames are a niche market - all but gone from the high street shelves. But the CA team include people with backgrounds in hardcore wargames and they have brought in an awful lot of wargame-type modelling.

I concur with that as well. While I love the Total War battles due to how detailed & comprehensive they are (factoring in morale, weather, terrain, fatigue, etc.), I doubt CA has ever intended that to be the only focus of their games, even though it's highlighted as the series' centerpiece feature. Lots of people like building a kingdom/empire just as they like seeing thousands of troops in combat, and the TW games simply combines these two elements better than most--if not all--of the other titles out there.

In fact, I fantasise about the time when I can "possess" my general on the battlefield, Mount and Blade style. We're not that far away from that now (I tend to give orders to other units and then fixate a little on what my general's bodyguard is doing).

Ah, 'tis a consumation devoutly to be wished! I know that I--along with most of my friends that play Total War--have long hoped to such a feature. (A pity that Rise & Fall: Civilizations at War turned out so mediocre, as it had this ability.)

[Polemists]

While that feature might be impressive. Keep in mind I agree with others they do have to market the thing. First person adventure like that in Rise and Fall failed miserably. Then add infactor most solid war, or solid empire building games have died (thou Caesar is trying to make a comeback as is stronghold.) I think hybrids are the thing, the only way to bring a RPGER, a Startegy Gamer, RTS and Turnbased, and the Sim Builders together is to combine all the elements. If you dislike this combination I'm afraid to say I think it's only going to expand as time goes on. Don't be surprised if there's even more management in a expansion. just my thought.