Campaign and Overall Game direction.....

[Theron Branson]

Of course this is my opinion and if it has been posted elsewhere please just let me know.

The General Game:

My hope is that this game is setup correctly from the start. I hope the devs do NOT make several buckets to for people to play. For example Campaign, Skrimishes and so on. These pool too many people away from what should be the main focus of the game and that is the campaign. I'm all for adding "Fast Action" queue for individuals who are needed to fill unit/clan ranks in matches in the campaign but against the "15min" battles that mean nothing that most games have. Also curious too see how this game continues to make money as I would hate the "Pay to Win" model by adding weapons that would through out the early war balance.

The Campaign:

I would hope for something along the lines of WW2 Online. It's realistic to a point but let High Command actually dictate when and where to go. The Armies and sub-units can/should start with real numbers but the Civil War already happened so again imho we don't need to replay ever battle like it was exactly in real life. Allow Generals and maybe even higher officers, the ability to resupply and reinforce their units and also be cool if there was a way to add "Fortify" where the defenders have the ability to have some small fortified positions available or even a 1 minute to setup before the battle begins. I also hope that taking/loosing each section of land matters to the overall campaign effort. Another thing I would like to see is some type of marker on the map of each unit but also shows their readiness, morale, and experience (Green to elite). This also changes due to supplies, days in battle, numbers and so on. Also let each death be subtracted from the unit's total number and allow the unit commander decide to put a number in place before action starts before it is forced to retreat.

Example: Division A has 1,000 men at it's retreat level at "Green" means it retreats once 50 percent is lost. Higher the experience level the more it can loose if needed.

I have a more ideas but imho I think this could really make this game into something great at this stage of development.

[JmCraz8]

It would be cool to have the entire battlefield open and the battles last an hour or so would be great.

[Legion]

I'm working on some ideas and maps for a campaign style game-mode that I think would work well in-game. I'll post it once I'm done.

[michaelsmithern]

Well if i had to make a "Campaign of sorts it would be a mutlistage battle which could last hours or the event organizer could split it into a weekend or something, and basically it starts with the battle for Harpers Ferry, once that has concluded, (hopefully the confederates win) then it moves to south mountain, then antietam and finally shepherdstown.

This whole digging in thing wouldn't really make sense as it would take a while to build the fortifications and these battles weren't siege battles(with exception to Harpers Ferry)

Some good points you made however were the regimental thing, where if you have the 69thNY bring all their companies they have the tickets equal to the historical number of men that fought in that regiment. This would just be there to show the unit losses for the battle, nothing else really.
Another good point is that it would give generals more of a job, while i'm sure the devs have something planned for them, this could be something else for them to do, seeing as, lets use the 69thNY, 1stMN, 42ndPA for examples(just the names not the people in them) and the 69th takes 268 losses at south mountain, the 1stMN loses 649 men, and the 42ndPA is down 28 men. it would allow the general to move the unit with the least amount of losses to a place where a heavy amount of enemy units are moving in.

Lastly i think the 15 minute battle thing is basically the skirmishes.

[MK81]

Good thread Theron, I was thinking similar thoughts.

Be interesting to see what Legion comes up with later on.

I think michaelsmithern is right about the fortification idea in terms of building fortifications, but agree with what Theron stated about having the command require a unit to hold a position. Maybe instead of 'fortify' it could be the command to "Find cover and defend" and use the trees/walls/fences for protection.

Personally, I think the separate skirmishes idea for a game such as this will detract from the numbers that could be applied to a Campaign styled format. If people just want to get going straight to the action, maybe the Company Tool could have an indicator as to which Platoon/Company/Brigade is currently is having it's numbers reduced indicating conflict, or a indicator that provided the same function. As people will be populating/repopulating to the Company flag it would give them what they wanted. For those who enjoy the whole process, carry on as normal.

Very interested as to how the HQ/Command group plays out. Communications between HQ/Command and Companies threads have already been posted and I'd be interested to see a response from the Campfire Games folk on this.

[Hinkel]

I'm working on some ideas and maps for a campaign style game-mode that I think would work well in-game. I'll post it once I'm done.

If you are working on it, please add to your ideas, how the company tool can be linked with your idea ;)

[Theron Branson]

I agree MK81. I play MechWarrior Online and they have the same issue of everyone playing in the separate queues and the population for their campaign called "Faction Warfare" is not populated enough to be fun. It causes long waits and when you do get into a game unless you play in a unit/clan you get steam rolled. Not sure how the devs plan on setting this game up. Is it everyone can get a server of their own like Red Orchestra and you play in maps of actual historic areas? Or is it 3 main server locations (Around the world NA, EU, Oceanic) and they control it? If it's like the first option then I urge the devs to help support fanbase made campaigns (as I loved and used to run WW2 campaigns all the time for Darkest Hour and Red Orchestra with interactive maps unit strengths and so on with news reports aka: After Action Reports). If it's option 2 then please do NOT break up the pool of players. You can add quick action for units that are currently fighting and could use more players. For balance try to make sure new players join the side with the least amount of players. If the devs need ideas or help I would like to offer any help I can.

[MK81]

I have had a stroll around the Training Map a couple of times now and the map is vast. It took approximately 15 minutes at double time to reach the Union camp outer limits from the CSA camp (And for those who haven't tried it yet, you can't see any Union troops and vice versa as it's two separate servers). It could mean that even with scouts within a battle of 100v100 it could be very hard to find one another unless the Union troops went directly West and the Confederate troops went directly East, on the current technical alpha map. If you plan on being a scout, I salute you. I think the more numbers the better, but completely understand the technical challenges that this may cause.

Have to take my hat off to the Campfire Games folk though, excellent map and so far very enjoyable game play experience to date.

[Legion]

If you are working on it, please add to your ideas, how the company tool can be linked with your idea ;)

Will do, it's gonna take a little bit to get it all put together. I'm kinda worried that my ideas are a little too complex for a game like this. I'll probably make multiple version just in case (a simple version and a complex version)

I'm not sure if any of my ideas are even possible but I'll post it all in the suggestions thread once I'm done.

[michaelsmithern]

Will do, it's gonna take a little bit to get it all put together. I'm kinda worried that my ideas are a little too complex for a game like this. I'll probably make multiple version just in case (a simple version and a complex version)

I'm not sure if any of my ideas are even possible but I'll post it all in the suggestions thread once I'm done.

good luck legion, can't wait to see your idea

[Legion]

I'm having a hard time explaining some of my ideas, and most of them would require the creation of more maps, you can't really have much of a campaign with 4 maps.

My idea is to have a map of Virginia, Maryland, and Southern Pennsylvania for an eastern theater setting, then to have the map divided into multiple regions. Each region would have a set of battles that can be fought.

I really don't think my ideas could be implemented unless we had community made maps.

I'm gonna keep working on it, any idea how to implement a campaign with just 4 maps?

[michaelsmithern]

I'm having a hard time explaining some of my ideas, and most of them would require the creation of more maps, you can't really have much of a campaign with 4 maps.

My idea is to have a map of Virginia, Maryland, and Southern Pennsylvania for an eastern theater setting, then to have the map divided into multiple regions. Each region would have a set of battles that can be fought.

I really don't think my ideas could be implemented unless we had community made maps.

I'm gonna keep working on it, any idea how to implement a campaign with just 4 maps?

Well the maryland Campaign of course. Hahaha, but really it would be nice to play from Manassas to Appomattox

[Theron Branson]

Legion, if you make "Generic" maps like Farm, Stream crossing, hilly and so on with a couple Historic accurate maps it wouldn't be that bad because then you use the generic maps several times. I used to run WW2 campaigns and for example Battle Wacht Am Rhein I used a Foy map and other winter "Town" type map for Bastogne because we didn't have a "Real Bastogne" map.

My biggest question now is the game going to be run on a private Dev based server or players going to be able to rent/host their own servers for this game? Is the game going to have a built in campaign or can we have "Fanbase" made campaigns? This makes a huge difference.

[Legion]

Legion, if you make "Generic" maps like Farm, Stream crossing, hilly and so on with a couple Historic accurate maps it wouldn't be that bad because then you use the generic maps several times. I used to run WW2 campaigns and for example Battle Wacht Am Rhein I used a Foy map and other winter "Town" type map for Bastogne because we didn't have a "Real Bastogne" map.

My biggest question now is the game going to be run on a private Dev based server or players going to be able to rent/host their own servers for this game? Is the game going to have a built in campaign or can we have "Fanbase" made campaigns? This makes a huge difference.

I'm curious about this as well. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to have our own servers. And as for the player campaigns, if they have mod-support then I'm sure we could develop some pretty good ones.

My plan is to make a campaign map divided in regions, etc. and to make maps for each specific region, that way each map feels real and unique and not just some random generic map. I don't mind having non-historical maps because it allows for some cool what if scenarios in a campaign. What if Lees was successful in the Maryland campaign, where would he have gone next. The community can make what-if maps and add the to the overall experience while the devs can focus on the actual battlefields.

Another good thing about community made maps is that it opens up the possibility of having battles that the devs may not be interested or have time doing (things like the Red River campaign, Chickamauga, Vicksburg, etc.)

[Wildcat]

im pretty sure they confirmed hosting your own servers.

[Theron Branson]

im pretty sure they confirmed hosting your own servers.

But if we can use our own servers then why have a "Company Tool" then? It says on their FAQ that this will be a large online game as a campaign or the skirmish which I think is Quick Action. They would have to host the servers for a game like this otherwise I can be either side and make my own rules and so on. Also, the only way for them to make money would be for people to purchase the game outright and any expansions. If they can control their own server they can charge "Rent" to say play in campaign mode or for new items. I haven't found any details on this matter. Also if we do say rent our own servers from say gamerservers.com I'm not so sure they would offer several hundred slot servers for this game. Could be wrong but it wouldn't make sense to me.

[Wildcat]

But if we can use our own servers then why have a "Company Tool" then? It says on their FAQ that this will be a large online game as a campaign or the skirmish which I think is Quick Action. They would have to host the servers for a game like this otherwise I can be either side and make my own rules and so on. Also, the only way for them to make money would be for people to purchase the game outright and any expansions. If they can control their own server they can charge "Rent" to say play in campaign mode or for new items. I haven't found any details on this matter. Also if we do say rent our own servers from say gamerservers.com I'm not so sure they would offer several hundred slot servers for this game. Could be wrong but it wouldn't make sense to me.

we are still going to be able to play on any side as any unit anyway, Our Companies are more a comunity than anything.