How to maintain realism? And peoples ideas on the topic.

[Gkurens]

After reading a few posts on realism and what people wanted and expected, I started thinking about how will realism be affected by people who may not care as much for it as others might. By this I mean more specifically, players who may go for games that are more about constant action, fast paced movement, and big explosions. Not to name names but games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, CSGO, Halo, ect. I feel like sometime after the game's official release people who may not purposefully play historically and physically (physically meaning, getting hit usually means death, fatigue, time of day changing) realistic games will start to enter the community and may start to stop or hinder other players (not to say that I think these players do it on purpose) from having a completely realistic experience (to the extent that the game allows) in games / battles. Obviously this happens to all gaming communities and the community changes but I am directly thinking of M&B and the NW dlc, were I feel like people started to create their own random maneuvers in line battles as well as a bunch of other things of that nature. Obviously that started happening the moment the dlc was released but I feel like those are the only people that are left now. Yet another thing that I feel like you get with these type of players is usually they a very limited knowledge of the time period, or a very over simplified/stereotypical ideas of the period, or even sometimes don't even like history or worse don't even have an appreciation for it and just play the game because it involves shooting. Now I am not saying everyone like this is a bad person and does not deserve/ should not play the game but just that they can bring negative impacts with them when they buy and play the game, that being said they do bring one or two good things. One being money and two being awareness to a new/indie company and game.
So far from reading posts and discussions it seems everyone here is drawn to this game because of a deep liking of military history and gaming. Being gamers, you undoubtedly know of the disparity of even remotely realistic action games, of course there are games like Red Orchestra 2, Verdun , Mount and Blade, War of Roses, Iron Europe, and Arma , none of these are obviously about the 19th or 18th centuries let alone the American Civil War or American War of Independence (with the exception of NW dlc and N&S mod). I am overjoyed that there is finally going to be a realistic game about the Civil War. Seeing that this type of game is extremely rare, I am already concerned for the games' distant future especially when it comes to preserving the realism of actual tactics and field maneuvering when the people in question may not know how to properly maneuver. As most of you people probably know it is hard to find people who are interested in realism in warfare (The "boring" parts like sitting in camp or being on picket duty in the middle of the night, or even having a battle last hours instead of 15 minuets) unless you are involved with something like reenacting , that being said there are farbs and powder burners.

Now! After all that ranting and voicing my opinions and concerns, I would like to hear other peoples ideas and feelings on this matter and please NOTE: I am aware the developers probably share a similar concern on how to get people to cooperate en mass and how to do it realistically and am aware that they are working hard on ideas of how to do it. Also sorry for any grammatical errors or missing words or letters and if what am saying is a little bit scattered throughout the paragraph and not more concentrated/organized

And thanks to anyone who reads this or comments!!

[Killobytes]

Pretty sure the devs said there would be no AI in WoR

[Bravescot]

Pretty sure the devs said there would be no AI in WoR

There will be no AI in War of Rights. The Devs have confirmed it.

[Almanza P. Baker]

I'm completely at a loss! Two people respond to a thread obviously neither one of them read and one of them is a forum moderator. Please use your eyes again and actually read what the poster says, no where does he mention A.I. so not sure what your responding to.

As for what he actually said all I can say is that from what I've seen about the way the Devs are crafting the gameplay there will be many incentives to play as close to realistic as possible. Obviously there will be people that want to just run around doing their own thing but if it just gets them killed how long do you think they will continue playing. Once again I will state something I've said before but many people have trouble understanding, "This game is not a expansion or clone of M&B-NaS or any other game", it is a unique game and will function unlike anything you have played.

[BloodBeag]

I'm pretty sure the forum has glitched out because i saw those two replies to the thread next to this one but they are not there now.

[Bravescot]

no where does he mention A.I. so not sure what your responding to.

I know buddy ;) I was answering to Killobytes as he seemed unsure.

[Jamez]

I don't think there is any possible way to force people into the realism which is visioned for the game. They can and are implementing many ways to give incentives for people to work together and create a realistic setting but at the end of it all it will still just be up to the player if they want to follow the games guide lines.

[A. P. Hill]

I think if the word gets out to the right group of people, and they are out there, this realism could very well happen. I know there are many people who are into the historical aspect of this, 99 percent of them are going to be true historians, and/or reenactors, and this needs to get into their circles. Everyone knows there is a reenactment season, so I suspect that during the off times of those seasons, this endeavor may see thousands of people missing the reenacting season join and partake of realistic battles of magnitude. During the reenactment season I suspect the activity may drop off some. But to get the numbers necessary to make this as realistic as possible, 200,000 players on the field of battle, isn't going to happen. I'd be thrilled with an event with even 5,000 guys between both sides.

And it's not because of technology that this magnitude will not be reached. There are servers out there now that can host hundreds of thousands of people at one time, granted, they're not hosting an event of this magnitude, so I think it depends on how fast a server bank can be built, and getting the server off of individual desktop units. (No I don't know the ideas or current setup so I may be pissin into the wind here.)

I also think, addressing your issues about people who play those other games, that the setting, and the attempt at realism by the developers and the rules that are to be implemented, will bore those people to the point that they'll do the pool self cleaning mode and give up on this, just drop it and go away, and those of us who want to keep the realism and correctness of this will remain to continue doing our own thing. And looking forward to years of other great battles from campfire games. The thing is, those of us who want the realism and true historic value of this endeavor to work and function as it did back in the day, we need to not give into the whims and demands of the non-believers for something different, something more to their preferences. This endeavor will survive on its own merits, we just need to find the people to fill the ranks, and as I said the more of those we can get the better of maintaining true realism in this endeavor, and greater numbers against the nay sayers, and wanna be rambos who play those other childish oriented games.

In the thought process of non-believers, I do have to say this ... there are already one or two individuals on this site who have started to voice the above referenced feelings of realism not working and the like, I have no idea why they keep fighting this, they are the only persons here who I have found that keep contending that what the developers are doing and what they envision for this endeavor will never work. I am getting kinda tired of the negativity, perhaps these people could find something else to do, like decide maybe this isn't going to work for them and quit trying to change it into something it's not intended to be. People can be forced to do what a particular program is designed to do, or they go find a program that will work the way they want it to work. I see it all the time in the engineering field.

If you find yourself fighting what is intended to take place in the presentation of this endeavor, then I have a simple suggestion ... change or be left behind. It's really that simple.

Again, I think the O.P. is expressing a valid fear, but it is a fear the community when it comes together can overcome.

My $0.02.

Powell

1713

[Gkurens]

A. P. Hill
I like the point you made about reenactors and the fan base growing in the off season, I had not thought of that and it gives me even more hope for people wanting to stick to realism. As well as uninterested/unwanted players getting board and leaving. Thanks for your input, I enjoyed reading your post.

[A. P. Hill]

A. P. Hill
I like the point you made about reenactors and the fan base growing in the off season, I had not thought of that and it gives me even more hope for people wanting to stick to realism. As well as uninterested/unwanted players getting board and leaving. Thanks for your input, I enjoyed reading your post.

My pleasure Sir! May we look to see you upon the field of battle.

[Rithal]

I appreciate your concerns, and these are things that I know I have thought about and pondered for years now. :)

As others have said, the developers will be including many incentives that will push units to stay with each other. In addition, in regards to your concerns over War of Rights attracting some of the "action fps crowd" (those from Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, CS:GO, ect.) I look at it this way. A historical gamer can love history games, and games such as CoD, Halo, and Battlefield. However, an action fps fan generally doesn't love historical games. In this sense, I see the only players War of Rights will attract from those games in the first place are fans of history. :)

This same idea goes for every type of gamer. What gamer who doesn't enjoy history is going to be interested in this game? :)

That's not say that I am discouraging non-historical gamers from playing the game. By all means, try it out. However, I definitely see almost all of the player base being history connoisseurs. :)

[Soulfly]

I appreciate your concerns, and these are things that I know I have thought about and pondered for years now. :)

As others have said, the developers will be including many incentives that will push units to stay with each other. In addition, in regards to your concerns over War of Rights attracting some of the "action fps crowd" (those from Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, CS:GO, ect.) I look at it this way. A historical gamer can love history games, and games such as CoD, Halo, and Battlefield. However, an action fps fan generally doesn't love historical games. In this sense, I see the only players War of Rights will attract from those games in the first place are fans of history. :)

This same idea goes for every type of gamer. What gamer who doesn't enjoy history is going to be interested in this game? :)

That's not say that I am discouraging non-historical gamers from playing the game. By all means, try it out. However, I definitely see almost all of the player base being history connoisseurs. :)

please allow me to add that CoD, Halo, and Battlefield are not having such a interactive community as WoR already has. The idea of individual companies forming regiments forming a division forming an entire army will be a great base to build on and making great historical events happen, looking forward to it !

[BloodBeag]

Something I don't understand with the company system is how do you then have officers higher than captain? THey won't be a part of a company, part of the regiment as a whole and what about the ranks above regiment level, who decides who gets to be them? It would be dodgy to have 2 small companies in a regiment who don't actually play together and then have majors and colonels above them. It's also sort of contradictory to all the opposition to having large communities comprising of multiples companies as to have colonels and majors and sergeant majors, you need to have unified groups of companies. This should probably be it's own thread in the companies sub-thread but there is a lot fo pressure to provide meaningful comments if you make your own post

[Jamez]

Something I don't understand with the company system is how do you then have officers higher than captain? THey won't be a part of a company, part of the regiment as a whole and what about the ranks above regiment level, who decides who gets to be them? It would be dodgy to have 2 small companies in a regiment who don't actually play together and then have majors and colonels above them. It's also sort of contradictory to all the opposition to having large communities comprising of multiples companies as to have colonels and majors and sergeant majors, you need to have unified groups of companies. This should probably be it's own thread in the companies sub-thread but there is a lot fo pressure to provide meaningful comments if you make your own post

They explained an idea (http://warofrights.com/FieldReport21_KickstarterUpdate12) which they have in mind for dealing with regimental leaders. But this whole system is still in the making so everything may be completely different upon release.


While company creation is the first step for a player-based organization, we want to extend that system in the future. For example, companies will be able to vote a regiment leader, while regiments will be able to group up in brigades with a commander. The goal is to create an authentic player-organized command system, from corps, divisions, brigades and regiments down to the company itself

[Hinkel]

Something I don't understand with the company system is how do you then have officers higher than captain? THey won't be a part of a company, part of the regiment as a whole and what about the ranks above regiment level, who decides who gets to be them?

In skirmish phase 1, you can choose different regiments to spawn as ingame. For example in the "Sunken Road" scenario, you can choose the 69th New York Infantry.
One of the players is able to play as the Colonel of the 69th NY.

The rank you have in your company does not matter, which "rank" you are able to play ingame. If you are a Sergeant in the 79th NY - Company A .. you can of course play as the Colonel of the 69th NY ingame. You are then in command of the other players, which are joining in with the 69th NY. It does not matter, if they come from different companies.

In the future, we will have unique server options, where your Company rank will be used ingame.

[BloodBeag]

ok that would make sense.

THAKNYOU

[Hatchmo]

As a reeanctor, on that note, yes you will attract some from the reenactment/living historian field, however I do think that will be limited due to the lack of younger reenactors. With that being said, hopefully this game will increase interest in reenacting for younger generations.

As far as having people running around doing their own thing, I think they will find that not working out for them very well. Think about it. If you've got one loner finding himself facing a firing line of 10 players, they wouldn't stand much of a chance. The weapons and strategy of the time relied on numbers working together. The weapons alone will limit the ability of solo playing.

I am very excited about the game and I can't wait to play it!

[A. P. Hill]

This endeavor does not necessarily mean and/nor is it intended to attract just younger players. Take that from someone who's currently old enough to possibly be your grandfather. :)

I would love to see more of the mature reenactor types join this. They will know how to hold and form this system together.

[Willie Fisterbottom]

I mean its a game, sure youre gonna have more historical players than your average fps but there are still going to be alot of people who dont care about realism or being serious in the game. Just look at Arma its one of the most realistic military simulators and you still have people who do funny stupid things. Even in Napoleonic wars its not a fast paced fps and you know what the community for that is like. Me personally idgaf about historical accuracy i just want it to be fun.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

I think the will be for a special group. the skirmish battles sounds like something that could be great for the fps players. the name of the historical battles say all I think ;)

[A. P. Hill]

I mean its a game, sure youre gonna have more historical players than your average fps but there are still going to be alot of people who dont care about realism or being serious in the game. Just look at Arma its one of the most realistic military simulators and you still have people who do funny stupid things. Even in Napoleonic wars its not a fast paced fps and you know what the community for that is like. Me personally idgaf about historical accuracy i just want it to be fun.

You may want to try historical accuracy. You might find it more fun than you could imagine.

But then life isn't all about just running around pell mell and shooting everything in sight either. I mean that's only but so much fun.

[Willie Fisterbottom]

You may want to try historical accuracy. You might find it more fun than you could imagine.

But then life isn't all about just running around pell mell and shooting everything in sight either. I mean that's only but so much fun.

Oh don't get me wrong im not against historical accuracy and since its what everyone else wants then go for it. Its just not the drawing feature of the game for me. But i know what you mean, i always thought that those reenactment battles looked fun.

[A. P. Hill]

Oh don't get me wrong im not against historical accuracy and since its what everyone else wants then go for it. Its just not the drawing feature of the game for me. But i know what you mean, i always thought that those reenactment battles looked fun.

I had much fun when I was reenacting. I highly suggest you locate a local group and try it, even if it's for once season.

[R21]

I can see this game being fun if some concessions to realism are made, 1:1 realism just doesn't work in Games. Look at Squad, the actual Gun-play etc they've tried to make realistic but to make Battles flow better and have more randomisation in Games they have the FOB system (Player made spawn points which can be placed anywhere on the Map given certain criteria are met) which is something I think could work really well in WOR if the map is as big as I think it'll be.

Weapon handling/ballistics and all that :: yeh, go to town, make these aspects as realistic as you can, but there are areas where concessions need to be made to retain overall fluidity of the Game and the Battles. I've played many realism based Games over the years and have seen the same thing over and over again, Gameplay > realism every time.

[SHoGUN]

I don't think there is any possible way to force people into the realism which is visioned for the game. They can and are implementing many ways to give incentives for people to work together and create a realistic setting but at the end of it all it will still just be up to the player if they want to follow the games guide lines.
In the end if the realism remains the focus with the devs (which I really hope it does) it will work regardless. There will be no need of forcing players to play a certain way, as those players that don't follow the veterans, and listen to their superiors (i.e. Officers or Generals) then it will be them that end up having a bad time. I believe with this kind of game, players are a lot more sensible and mature, and would likely be willing to support new players keen to try out the realism approach, and have a lot of fun with it. Trolls will always be trolls, and this game won't escape them, but what is the worst they can do? Maybe spoil a round, before other players have none of it. Let players go off and have their own fun if they must, but it'll end up biting them in the ass when they find out players stick together for a reason.


I think if the word gets out to the right group of people, and they are out there, this realism could very well happen. I know there are many people who are into the historical aspect of this, 99 percent of them are going to be true historians, and/or reenactors, and this needs to get into their circles. Everyone knows there is a reenactment season, so I suspect that during the off times of those seasons, this endeavor may see thousands of people missing the reenacting season join and partake of realistic battles of magnitude. During the reenactment season I suspect the activity may drop off some. But to get the numbers necessary to make this as realistic as possible, 200,000 players on the field of battle, isn't going to happen. I'd be thrilled with an event with even 5,000 guys between both sides.

And it's not because of technology that this magnitude will not be reached. There are servers out there now that can host hundreds of thousands of people at one time, granted, they're not hosting an event of this magnitude, so I think it depends on how fast a server bank can be built, and getting the server off of individual desktop units. (No I don't know the ideas or current setup so I may be pissin into the wind here.)

I also think, addressing your issues about people who play those other games, that the setting, and the attempt at realism by the developers and the rules that are to be implemented, will bore those people to the point that they'll do the pool self cleaning mode and give up on this, just drop it and go away, and those of us who want to keep the realism and correctness of this will remain to continue doing our own thing. And looking forward to years of other great battles from campfire games. The thing is, those of us who want the realism and true historic value of this endeavor to work and function as it did back in the day, we need to not give into the whims and demands of the non-believers for something different, something more to their preferences. This endeavor will survive on its own merits, we just need to find the people to fill the ranks, and as I said the more of those we can get the better of maintaining true realism in this endeavor, and greater numbers against the nay sayers, and wanna be rambos who play those other childish oriented games.

In the thought process of non-believers, I do have to say this ... there are already one or two individuals on this site who have started to voice the above referenced feelings of realism not working and the like, I have no idea why they keep fighting this, they are the only persons here who I have found that keep contending that what the developers are doing and what they envision for this endeavor will never work. I am getting kinda tired of the negativity, perhaps these people could find something else to do, like decide maybe this isn't going to work for them and quit trying to change it into something it's not intended to be. People can be forced to do what a particular program is designed to do, or they go find a program that will work the way they want it to work. I see it all the time in the engineering field.

If you find yourself fighting what is intended to take place in the presentation of this endeavor, then I have a simple suggestion ... change or be left behind. It's really that simple.

Again, I think the O.P. is expressing a valid fear, but it is a fear the community when it comes together can overcome.

My $0.02.

Powell

1713Well said A.P. Hill. There needs to be more gamers who appreciate realism as you do. Why do people have to hate on it so much? It's actually the reason realistic survival games like DayZ took so long to take off, is all the unbelievers. No one wanted to support these kinds of games to begin with, as they 'don't sell' and they're not allowing you to constantly be shooting at the screen, but look how popular it became. Allow for devs to bring as much realism as they envision possible into the game. People saying gameplay first/realism second, haven't been properly immersed into a realistic game yet. Once you are, things do just become enjoyable, and the intensity of battle is heightened dramatically.

[rebeldestroyer]

Has anyone told BlueDrake42 about this game he has a huge community of people who play Project reality and I feel those people would like war of rights.

My friends and I have a saying: If you put a hardcore COD fanboy in the middle of an actual conflict he will A. get killed B. kill friendlies or C. Somehow kill 5 people and shout " where's my UAV"
Therefore I hope that no COD fanboys make it into this community.

[RhettVito]

For a civil war game historical accuracy needs to be key with correct uniforms for both sides