Real time war campaign

[Octavian360]

First off I have been following this game since December (or around there) and I must say as an avid reader of Civil War era material you guys are doing a wonderful job and have secured my payment for this game! Below I have done my best to collect my thoughts and suggestion regarding implementing a real time war campaign.

I do have a suggestion that would take more time to implement but could be beautiful in capturing long lasting players for months or even years. This suggestion stems off of PlanetSide 2; I have been playing this game a lot over the past month and really like the large scale battles and meaningful capturing of objectives for my faction through their live action Alert system. My purpose is not to promote this game, as it is very much different to what the devs of this game are wishing to accomplish; however, I think it would be a very neat idea to keep player interaction with the brand.

For those who are unaware of this game or what the alert system is, I will do my best to explain it briefly. The main game has 3-4 continents in which you fight over, each having their own characteristics (snow, jungle, desert etc...). There are three factions who are fighting over territory to control (hexes), some hexes give unique territory bonuses these are biolabs. Every so often (dont know if its on a time clock or what) there are alerts for factions to fight on a specific continent to control the entire continent and reap its benefits (discounts off on armor, air, or maxes). These alerts go for around ~2 hours at the end of the time limit whoever has the most territory wins; there are ties that happen though in which the continent is not locked down and becomes open without Alert benefits.

Now that I have explained how PlanetSide 2 operates their live action alerts/continent battles lets dive into how WoR may implement a type of system - this is brainstorming. First off there would need to be a map once you login to the game; this map would be of the eastern coast of the USA; an opportunity to gain more revenue would be to have expansions/DLC that open up the map to the Western Coast and some of the South. It would be up to your own discretion as devs to choose which cities you would want to "re-create" in some way shape or form as objective points to capture. Here comes the beauty of having the expansion packs planned for the future. Upon release you would be able to buy a certain stage of the war which would unlock an early timeline of the Civil War (Northern Virginia, Maryland, Penns etc..); then at your discretion release another DLC which opens up another portion of the war. This way you are not rushed to create a bunch of cities that would jeopardize your release timeline, along with creating bad content due to time constraints. There are "historically accurate" games that use this sort of system as well; WW2Online comes to mind immediately. Some fantasy games utilize a control resources system as well ArcheAge, Elder Scrolls Online, Guild Wars 2. You would be capturing players to stay longer in the game if there was a bigger purpose to winning the map.

Lets go into another discussion that some of you may be saying to yourself... This would shift the game into an MMOFPS or MMOFPSRPG classification - let me say that I have never seen an MMOFPSRPG game classification before :P. This is very true, could potentially push the release date further back due to added content. However, this would bring a new dynamic to a game that would keep players engaged longer potentially and allow further revenue sources.

[Rithal]

I would enjoy something similar to this however ( Yes I know I say this a lot on here ) it seems like the developers are really trying to get the Maryland campaign out before they move on to other things. While I would love to see extra content for this game, developers should tread lightly considering the recent backlash against developers who pushed out too much dlc (that costs money) too quickly and/or too soon after release. Granted situations like this have happened mainly to AAA companies but I still think that dlc should not be at the forefront of our minds. I definitely love the idea however and I have thought of a similar scenario myself. In the end though, its completely up to the developers. I will leave it at that.

[Octavian360]

I hope the Devs read this and are able to comment on their stance or clarify more on the Maryland Campaign.

[Rithal]

I'm sure we will receive a response soon ;)

[TrustyJam]

Thank you for your input. We are looking at creating a sort of "endgame" campaign map, but it's very far off and not something that's a priority at all for us at the moment. As SgtRithal rightly pointed out, we are focused on the Maryland campaign at the moment.

- Trusty

[Octavian360]

Thank you for your input. We are looking at creating a sort of "endgame" campaign map, but it's very far off and not something that's a priority at all for us at the moment. As SgtRithal rightly pointed out, we are focused on the Maryland campaign at the moment.

- Trusty

This is very good to hear! Thanks Trusty!

[Historical Player]

I would love to see battles such as New Market, Pigeon's Roost, Bull Run, Shilo, and Chickamauga.

[Rithal]

I would love to see battles such as New Market, Pigeon's Roost, Bull Run, Shilo, and Chickamauga.

I would love a Shiloh map.... What? No. There is no bias present in this situation XD

[Historical Player]

XD. We're all friends here!

[Rithal]

XD. We're all friends here!

I was saying I'm a little bias towards battles that occurred in Tennessee (Where I am from) thus I would like for these battles to be included before others. Just me trying to be funny I guess. :D

[Historical Player]

I was saying I'm a little bias towards battles that occurred in Tennessee (Where I am from) thus I would like for these battles to be included before others. Just me trying to be funny I guess. :D

You funny? No, never going to happen, lol! A lot of Tennessee battles were very vital to the end of the war, yet you never hear of them. Like, the Battle of Knoxville, Lookout Mountain, and Missionary Ridge.

[Rithal]

You funny? No, never going to happen, lol! A lot of Tennessee battles were very vital to the end of the war, yet you never hear of them. Like, the Battle of Knoxville, Lookout Mountain, and Missionary Ridge.

Exactly! It drives me up a wall XD

[Historical Player]

I would love to see the Valley Campaign, the Peninsular Campaign, and the Tennessee Campaign.

[Carson]

I think this would be a great idea!

[PurplePanda]

I think this would be a great idea!

Ditto McDitto

[Rithal]

One campaign at a time gentlemen, although I do look forward to future projects from this team ;)

[Hinkel]

I would love to see the Valley Campaign, the Peninsular Campaign, and the Tennessee Campaign.

There are indeed a huge bunch of campaigns, which are very interesting! Like that Valley Campaign or the Peninsular Campaign (with the 7 days battle).
Such a campaign, like the Maryland Campaign we are working on at the moment, is taking years of development. The research needs mostly half a year itself!, to collect all the information, reading the battle-after action reports, getting photos and videos of the battlefields, collecting the blue-prints of the battlefield buildings and structures... and more! And thats just for the battlefields, not to speak of the fighting units.. :D

So speaking about other campaigns is definatly interesting, but its most pretty far in the future right now, although we already have a plan for the next big step, after Antietam ;)

[Soulfly]

The magic behind software development is unknown to most people, as it was to me before i stepped into that world. Speaking of campaigns, i really like the campaign system of RedOrchestra 2 where you have certain areas (containing certain maps/ battlefields) and you need to capture all areas or defeat the enemy, since both sides have a certain amount of tickets which are going down by loosing and battle losses.

I think that would work for WoR in a good way, starting at Harpers Ferry and battle all the way to Antietam...and maybe all the way back again. Thinking about a mostly linear way where you have to attack and win, when failing the other team has the option to counterattack....just a quick thought

[Historical Player]

There are indeed a huge bunch of campaigns, which are very interesting! Like that Valley Campaign or the Peninsular Campaign (with the 7 days battle).
Such a campaign, like the Maryland Campaign we are working on at the moment, is taking years of development. The research needs mostly half a year itself!, to collect all the information, reading the battle-after action reports, getting photos and videos of the battlefields, collecting the blue-prints of the battlefield buildings and structures... and more! And thats just for the battlefields, not to speak of the fighting units.. :D

So speaking about other campaigns is definatly interesting, but its most pretty far in the future right now, although we already have a plan for the next big step, after Antietam ;)
That's why you have us to help you all out! =D I am very excited to see what you all have planned in the future!

[DictatorDom]

The magic behind software development is unknown to most people, as it was to me before i stepped into that world. Speaking of campaigns, i really like the campaign system of RedOrchestra 2 where you have certain areas (containing certain maps/ battlefields) and you need to capture all areas or defeat the enemy, since both sides have a certain amount of tickets which are going down by loosing and battle losses.

I think that would work for WoR in a good way, starting at Harpers Ferry and battle all the way to Antietam...and maybe all the way back again. Thinking about a mostly linear way where you have to attack and win, when failing the other team has the option to counterattack....just a quick thought
Isn't the point that it's all happening real-time on the battlefield? The commander relays what to do/what to attack and defend and all that, the officers carry it out or don't etc. A campaign map would kind of ruin that.

[Soulfly]

Isn't the point that it's all happening real-time on the battlefield? The commander relays what to do/what to attack and defend and all that, the officers carry it out or don't etc. A campaign map would kind of ruin that.

eh...i think you dont understand what i meant. You may find this helpful http://wiki.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?title=RO2_Multiplayer_Campaign dont know how such a mode would "ruin" anything. Never said that WoR should copy the whole mode 1:1

[DictatorDom]

eh...i think you dont understand what i meant. You may find this helpful http://wiki.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?title=RO2_Multiplayer_Campaign dont know how such a mode would "ruin" anything. Never said that WoR should copy the whole mode 1:1
I play RO2, and I do like their campaign style but do we have enough full-sized maps for that? It's mostly just Antietem and some other Penninsular stuff areas correct?

[Soulfly]

As far as i know there will be three battles supported which were fought during the Campaign. Since it is possible to set up skirmishes with smaller battlefields, the possibility to choose between several battlefields is given.

[Hinkel]

I play RO2, and I do like their campaign style but do we have enough full-sized maps for that? It's mostly just Antietem and some other Penninsular stuff areas correct?

Well.. if you look at it, that the Antietam map size is maybe ~60 Red Orchestra maps big.. there is enough room, to get a fully campaign map.. just on the Antietam Battlefield itself. ;)

So the entire battlefield could be divided into 10 skirmish maps... then you would have a great campaign, starting from the morning fight till the night. So such a campaign would indeed work on those single battlefields.

[Soulfly]

Well.. if you look at it, that the Antietam map size is maybe ~60 Red Orchestra maps big.. there is enough room, to get a fully campaign map.. just on the Antietam Battlefield itself. ;)

So the entire battlefield could be divided into 10 skirmish maps... then you would have a great campaign, starting from the morning fight till the night. So such a campaign would indeed work on those single battlefields.

Thats what i tried to say, but reading my last post...well you pointed it out correctly

[88thNY_InFaMY]

To be fair I think this is a great idea but something that should be addressed at a later date for the fact that in my opinion something like this would be much better on the large scale with many units instead of nickle and dime stuff. I would like to suggest that instead of using just partials of one map you can use the full maps and have maps exclusive to that mode that are equal size if anything I would suggest looking at WW2 On-Line I always loved their campaign style and map.

[DictatorDom]

Well.. if you look at it, that the Antietam map size is maybe ~60 Red Orchestra maps big.. there is enough room, to get a fully campaign map.. just on the Antietam Battlefield itself. ;)

So the entire battlefield could be divided into 10 skirmish maps... then you would have a great campaign, starting from the morning fight till the night. So such a campaign would indeed work on those single battlefields.
Ahh, that makes more sense. Do we know where each team/regiment will be deployed on this here huge battlefield though? Generally speaking, won't two armies meet at a different spot each time? Theyd have to figure out how to make the campaign map show what was taken by whom the first day before nightfall, who "won" (whose attacking or counter attacking). Plus, skirmishes are to be a whole seperate part of the game. If we split it up into many skirmish maps doesn't that destroy the point of the battlefield?

[Rithal]

Well.. if you look at it, that the Antietam map size is maybe ~60 Red Orchestra maps big.. there is enough room, to get a fully campaign map.. just on the Antietam Battlefield itself. ;)

So the entire battlefield could be divided into 10 skirmish maps... then you would have a great campaign, starting from the morning fight till the night. So such a campaign would indeed work on those single battlefields.

I would love a "campaign" style game that sticks to the historic shift of the battle, however I of course still would like the full map available for those who want to re-write history :D

[Octavian360]

I would love a "campaign" style game that sticks to the historic shift of the battle, however I of course still would like the full map available for those who want to re-write history :D

I would prefer something that allowed you to change history though. A more dynamic campaign map like previously stated.

[RhettVito]

Good idea man

[Soulfly]

I would love a "campaign" style game that sticks to the historic shift of the battle, however I of course still would like the full map available for those who want to re-write history :D

Staying to the " historic shift of the battle" wont work for an multiplayer campaign, it would be rather senseless when the Union repelled all attacks at Harpers Ferry but getting defeated anyway or getting a "You lost" message at the end of the round because its historic.

[Rithal]

Staying to the " historic shift of the battle" wont work for an multiplayer campaign, it would be rather senseless when the Union repelled all attacks at Harpers Ferry but getting defeated anyway or getting a "You lost" message at the end of the round because its historic.

Well not staying to the exact course of the battle. Start where the battle began. If the union wins then the union side votes ( or devs could make it the general's decision ) on whether to attack or defend. If they defend then the Union stays entrenched. If they attack then they move to the next phase of the battle and assault confederate defenses. If they lose that battle then the confederacy votes ( or once again devs could make a general decide) on whether to assault or defend. If the confederacy votes to defend again then they stay entrenched and the Union can either attack or hold off. Im not exactly sure how a stalemate would work but yeah. It could either be like that or a completely dynamic battle that doesnt end until ine side captures set objectives.

[Soulfly]

Well not staying to the exact course of the battle. Start where the battle began. If the union wins then the union side votes ( or devs could make it the general's decision ) on whether to attack or defend. If they defend then the Union stays entrenched.

Which is basically the online campaign of RO2 :) would be great to have that

[Rithal]

Which is basically the online campaign of RO2 :) would be great to have that

Yes however I am suggesting that the next skirmish can only move to an adjacent skirmish zone compared to the RO2 system in which the next battle can occur in a number of different maps that are in no way relevant to the previous battle.

[Bravescot]

I do fully agree with Rithal on the area shifting idea as this kind of battlefield movement idea has been thrown around in the past before.

[Soulfly]

Yes however I am suggesting that the next skirmish can only move to an adjacent skirmish zone compared to the RO2 system in which the next battle can occur in a number of different maps that are in no way relevant to the previous battle.

of course that makes more sense, if you are thinking about featuring this on "one battle map only". But if you want to through the whole campaign....well i see a possibility to merge both ways into one.

[Rithal]

of course that makes more sense, if you are thinking about featuring this on "one battle map only". But if you want to through the whole campaign....well i see a possibility to merge both ways into one.

I see it as well :D