GameSpot Designer Diary: Mission Design

[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.

[screwtype]

In principle, I think a mission-driven game could be very interesting and challenging. It all depends on how it's implemented doesn't it?

I also disliked the missions in RTW, because they could often force you into making a choice between war with a new faction you just didn't need, or the dreaded -$50,000 dinar penalty (or whatever it was, I never got hit with it, but I know some players complained about it).

I think they could do worse than borrow some ideas from games like Imperialism II. In Imp II, for example, if you are the favourite faction of a minor faction (through carefully built up trade relations, mainly), and that faction is attacked, you get the option of automatically adding that entire faction to your own empire, at the cost of war with the faction that declared war on the minor faction. And then, adding all that territory to your own faction not only gets you into war with the aggressor, but also increases your chances of other major factions getting pissed with your acquisition and declaring war on you as well.

Choices like that - difficult choices which require much careful consideration, but which are logically consistent - can add a great deal to a game in my opinion. What you don't want is a bunch of missions being thrown at you left right and centre by different parties in a totally random way. That would just be stupid and frustrating.

[Tamur]

I don't know if anything will happen with Myrddraal's CA-questions thread, but I had asked specifically in that thread about RPG content in future TW engines.

This is an alive-and-growing debate in design communities. I see Penny's (and others') work on missions as a step along that path that will very likely lead to that oft wished-for feature of jumping into a general's boots in the battle engine. Dark Age of Camelot fans talk endlessly about the chaos of "large" battlefields there -- imagine the first-person chaos with fifteen thousand soldiers instead of fifty!

[Polemists]

Someone else may make it. However I have seen various posts on CA stating that for the next couple of YEARS, they plan to make turn based strategy games, which seems to imply not first person rpg action oriented game play.

[screwtype]

I don't know if anything will happen with Myrddraal's CA-questions thread, but I had asked specifically in that thread about RPG content in future TW engines.

This is an alive-and-growing debate in design communities. I see Penny's (and others') work on missions as a step along that path that will very likely lead to that oft wished-for feature of jumping into a general's boots in the battle engine. Dark Age of Camelot fans talk endlessly about the chaos of "large" battlefields there -- imagine the first-person chaos with fifteen thousand soldiers instead of fifty!

I don't want to imagine it. I'm strongly opposed to this idea. Because you are not in my opinion describing a TW game. You're describing a game type that I would regard as totally different and incompatible with the TW paradigm.

TW is about battle tactics, not first-person RPG action. There are already a thousand games like that on the market. If that's what you want, I suggest you go and buy one of them, rather than demand that the unique TW system become just another version of what's already widely available in the marketplace.