GameSpot Designer Diary: Mission Design

[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.

[Martok]

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).

Yeah, I really didn't care for the missions in Rome at all. It was very annoying to be playing the Julii and have the Senate tell me to go blockade Sparta, as I was almost always dealing with the Gauls at the time. (Besides which, shouldn't it be the Brutii's responsibility to deal with the Greeks, and not me? ) Or to have the Senate tell me to attack Carthage (which should be the Scipii's job anyway). Or attack the Egyptians or the Selucids. It would be one thing if the Senate provided missions to each Roman family that made sense--i.e., Julii attack the Gauls/Germans/Britons, Brutii attack the Greeks/Macedonians, Scipii attack Carthage/Numidians/Egyptians, etc.--but they rarely did.

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.

Now *that* would be fun. I could totally buy into that sort of system.

[econ21]

Yeah, I really didn't care for the missions in Rome at all. It was very annoying to be playing the Julii and have the Senate tell me to go blockade Sparta, as I was almost always dealing with the Gauls at the time. (Besides which, shouldn't it be the Brutii's responsibility to deal with the Greeks, and not me? ) Or to have the Senate tell me to attack Carthage (which should be the Scipii's job anyway). Or attack the Egyptians or the Selucids. It would be one thing if the Senate provided missions to each Roman family that made sense--i.e., Julii attack the Gauls/Germans/Britons, Brutii attack the Greeks/Macedonians, Scipii attack Carthage/Numidians/Egyptians, etc.--but they rarely did.

Strangely I tended to find the Senate missions were perfectly appropriate for my Julii campaign. They always set a target that was just within my grasp and often nudged me along a road I was already going (Gaul etc). I did not mind the blockade Greece/Carthage ones. I saw them just as a mechanism to make sure I was at war with the same enemies as the other two Roman factions.

Of course, what sold the missions to me where the chance of nice reward like a triarii (crumbs, they took long to build) or even better an exotic unit.

[Martok]

Strangely I tended to find the Senate missions were perfectly appropriate for my Julii campaign. They always set a target that was just within my grasp and often nudged me along a road I was already going (Gaul etc).

Then I envy you, econ. The missions I received always seemed pretty random. I did get the occasional mission that made sense for my chosen faction (conquer a Gaulish settlement as the Julii, capture a Carthaginian city as the Scipii, etc.), but overall that was pretty uncommon in my experience.

I did not mind the blockade Greece/Carthage ones. I saw them just as a mechanism to make sure I was at war with the same enemies as the other two Roman factions.

I can see the logic in that....and if missions like that had been limited to "blockade" only, I might not have minded so much. The problem is, I also received missions telling me to outright conquer Carthaginian and/or Greek cities as well. I still remember a Julii campaign where I was told to conquer Carthage itself, but the Scipii were already powerful enough to have done so themselves. Talk about your "WTF?!" moments....

Of course, what sold the missions to me where the chance of nice reward like a triarii (crumbs, they took long to build) or even better an exotic unit.

I admit I found that to be pretty cool as well, at least in concept. Often times, however, all I received was a couple extra units of Histati or maybe Principes if I was lucky. The most exotic "reward" unit I ever received was a unit of Sammite Gladiators, and that was only one time.

[screwtype]

Now *that* would be fun. I could totally buy into that sort of system.

Well, what are you waiting for? Go pick up a copy of Imp II! It shouldn't cost you more than a fiver...

[econ21]

ImpII is an excellent game, but be advised it has nothing remotely comparable to TW's battles. (Then again, what game does?)

It does have a Risk-style campaign map, similar to STW and MTW. But if anything the AI is worse at fighting on it than STW and MTWs AI. Don't buy it if you want a wargame.

At heart, ImpII is a Civ-type game: research, build, expore, conquer. Where it shines is in reducing the micromanagement and in creating an a really tight economic model - you face multiple resource constraints, and surpassing them on hard is a enjoyable challenge. It also has a Civ-style competitive AI. Fear the Swedes. (Fear the Swedes?!? Nowadays that sound almost like "Fear Mother Theresa" or "Fear Kofi Anand").

ImpII is probably my favorite of the "strategic" strategy games (as opposed to the wargames like TW or tactical strategy games like JA2)

[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.

[Martok]

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.

Tamur was referring to having this as a feature *in* the Total War strategy games, not as a separate first-person RPG.

[Myrddraal]

Myrddraal's CA-questions thread

Keep your fingers crossed . No guarantees though.

[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.

[Bob the Insane]

While I think Screwtype is overstating it (thousands of games of that type... ) I do agree...

I also want to keep things higher level and not control individuals in the TW game... The abstracted RPG elements of the development of your generals is fun and adds to the atmosphere (and replayability) of the game.

The mission thing is something that needs to be carefully handled. Down right though it could really add a lot more depth to empire building portion of the game...