Campaign

[Szotu]

I think it would be nice for multiplayer (even for scrimishes), map with regions on it, that every region is a map. Both sides are "pushing" other team to his last one. We can see that kind of gameplay in Red Orchestra for example. What you think?

[JaegerCoyote]

I think they are doing something like that with the historical battles.

[Jamez]

Is this the idea you had in mind? link (http://warofrights.com/FieldReport21_KickstarterUpdate3.aspx)

[Szotu]

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb269/Ralfst3r/Campaignmap.jpg?t=1284821891 I mean smth like that

[Hinkel]

Its a great idea, we have in our mind!
So we could add such "campaigns" on one map, like Antietam, which could consist of several map pieces.

[Jamez]

That picture is very similar to what they have in mind. As a team you would assault/defend a capture point in a certain location until one team is successful in taking/defending the point and then the frontline will shift around depending on the outcome of the engagements. Unless I am looking at that link wrong.

[Szotu]

That's cool! ^,^

[GreyDog58]

I adore campaign mode in RO2. (Anyone else at hero level?)

Great idea! +1

[Soulfly]

Its a great idea, we have in our mind!
So we could add such "campaigns" on one map, like Antietam, which could consist of several map pieces.

But maybe it would be possible to battle from Harpers Ferry to Sharpsburg, though i fear that such a campaign would last some hours ;)

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

So you play some battles in a row?

that would be great

[Soulfly]

Well, if they will be guided by RO2 you will have certain areas to battle on. For example the battle will take place at the bloody lane and the union wins, the union can now decide to attack further or defend.

1.) Attack: They can now choose another area bordering the bloody lane
2.) Defend: The CSA can choose to attack another area or counterattack

Wins/ losses will impact the amount of reinforcements/ tickets they have left. Just to give you a quick idea about that system, for me that is the most enjoyable i have met in multiplayer games so far

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

That's what I mean but I was to lazy to type because I am in university and writing on my phone :D

[Szotu]

Yea. U choose your battlefield as attacker and push frontline while vectorious. You attack till u lose. When enemy won a battle, he is attacker.

[Hinkel]

Well, if they will be guided by RO2 you will have certain areas to battle on. For example the battle will take place at the bloody lane and the union wins, the union can now decide to attack further or defend.

1.) Attack: They can now choose another area bordering the bloody lane
2.) Defend: The CSA can choose to attack another area or counterattack

Wins/ losses will impact the amount of reinforcements/ tickets they have left. Just to give you a quick idea about that system, for me that is the most enjoyable i have met in multiplayer games so far

Exactly, thats a very cool idea! :)
Pretty sure we will heading in that direction one day.

[Pvt.Scott]

So that would be like running with rifles. because that's what they use.

[Simon445]

Maybe even if 1 side lost a round, it would get less reinforcements, like Red Orchestra 2 has

[Jeffrey Miller]

I adore campaign mode in RO2. (Anyone else at hero level?)

Great idea! +1

I am, only play the German side though.

[R21]

They should learn from RO2' Campaign mode, it's a good idea but executed very poorly in that Game, like it was old unfinished content they tidied up and just decided to shove in the Game at the last minute ::



Every section of the Map should have unique areas/Maps (In RO2 you just wind up playing the same maps over and over again which throws any sense of immersion or progression out the Window)


Commanders/NCO's should have more of a say in whats Happening and the attacks, like let lower ranks vote on what they want to happen and make this info viewable for higher ranks, but ultimately make it the decision of higher ranks as to what actually happens


Supply system :: make it so Commanders can choose what to deploy (Like whether to Risk deploying Artillery/Cavalry) and make these units finite during the Campaign (if they get wiped out during one Skirmish it'll be a genuine blow to that Army for the remainder of the Campaign). Would be amazing if this also extended to fortifications, like Commanders placing Barricades/Anti cavalry stakes/trench-works before the round starts.


Unique items/reward :: I know this might be looked down on, but I think with something as drawn out as a campaign mode this could work, like tie certain cosmetic rewards to the outcome of a Campaign (e.g. Players/Regiments that are part of a victorious team during a Campaign get awarded these and only if they play the Campaign through to it's end).


POW's :: If they do implement a POW system it could be tied to the Campaign (Like making it so in certain situations it's more beneficial for a defending side to surrender in one battle) but this'd have to be factored in somehow and made beneficial for both teams (like the Ticket buffs/rewards making it worth-while for both sides).


End-Game :: In RO2 you get a contextual cut-scene at the end for which-ever side won, then the Campaign just restarts which is a bit underwhelming imo. In WOR you could have something like the losing sides General signing a surrender document or something lol, something a bit more in depth and worth-while than they have in RO2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHpBxdTrcQg

[Soulfly]

Well, IF a campaign mode will come alive one day i would like too see that only the general can choose where to engage, that "now folks, everybody vote" system doesnt feel right. Though the RO2 campaign mode is inspirational, its not working 1:1 on WoR just because we are lacking some maps compared to RO2.

@Supply system: I like this idea very much and it should be possible to implement

[A. P. Hill]

Gentlemen, Please note this whole endeavor IS called The 1862 Maryland Campaign. Plus, there are a multiplicity of locally associated maps. ;)

What might that suggest?

[Soulfly]

Dear Sir,

this says a lot and nothing. Though historical battles will be implemented it doesnt mean that there will be an explicit campaign mode, but you may have other sources ;)

Looking forward to serve under your command !

[R21]

They should learn from RO2' Campaign mode, it's a good idea but executed very poorly in that Game, like it was old unfinished content they tidied up and just decided to shove in the Game at the last minute ::



Every section of the Map should have unique areas/Maps (In RO2 you just wind up playing the same maps over and over again which throws any sense of immersion or progression out the Window)


Commanders/NCO's should have more of a say in whats Happening and the attacks, like let lower ranks vote on what they want to happen and make this info viewable for higher ranks, but ultimately make it the decision of higher ranks as to what actually happens


Supply system :: make it so Commanders can choose what to deploy (Like whether to Risk deploying Artillery/Cavalry) and make these units finite during the Campaign (if they get wiped out during one Skirmish it'll be a genuine blow to that Army for the remainder of the Campaign). Would be amazing if this also extended to fortifications, like Commanders placing Barricades/Anti cavalry stakes/trench-works before the round starts.


Unique items/reward :: I know this might be looked down on, but I think with something as drawn out as a campaign mode this could work, like tie certain cosmetic rewards to the outcome of a Campaign (e.g. Players/Regiments that are part of a victorious team during a Campaign get awarded these and only if they play the Campaign through to it's end).


POW's :: If they do implement a POW system it could be tied to the Campaign (Like making it so in certain situations it's more beneficial for a defending side to surrender in one battle) but this'd have to be factored in somehow and made beneficial for both teams (like the Ticket buffs/rewards making it worth-while for both sides).


End-Game :: In RO2 you get a contextual cut-scene at the end for which-ever side won, then the Campaign just restarts which is a bit underwhelming imo. In WOR you could have something like the losing sides General signing a surrender document or something lol, something a bit more in depth and worth-while than they have in RO2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHpBxdTrcQg


Gentlemen, Please note this whole endeavor IS called The 1862 Maryland Campaign. Plus, there are a multiplicity of locally associated maps. ;)

What might that suggest?


I'm hoping they're looking to make it as in depth as i've described, it really would suit a Game like this. Are the Devs taking on community feedback or are such modes nailed down internally in terms of their features?

http://wiki.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?title=RO2_Multiplayer_Campaign


Multiplayer Campaign Mode is an all new paradigm in multiplayer FPS games – more than just a game type, it ties the game types and individual matches together into a campaign that can last hours. This gives the multiplayer game more depth than ever before – individual matches now matter for the overall victory or loss in the MP campaign. Both sides battle it out to control territories on a large scale battle map, voting on which territories to attack, whether to attempt to take more territory, or to defend and try to grind down the enemies resources. We like to say it is like a “meta” game of Risk. This mode was released with both a Stalingrad and Pacific theater campaign.

http://wiki.tripwireinteractive.com/images/2/2d/Stalingrad_Theater_CampMap.png

That description really over-sells what it is in RO2, what usually ends up happening is the Team that's choosing whether to defend or Attack will, 8 times out of 10, attack and stuff like Manpower and choosing whether to Attack or Defend really doesn't make all that much of a difference. It just winds up being a disjointed series of normal maps played one after the other until one team runs out of Manpower or one Team takes all the territories.

For instance, it'd be good if a team choosing to defend actually got some kind of defensive bonus, like in WOR if you chose to defend your commander would get better defensive capabilities (Like the ability to place defensive objects in Maps like anti cavalry stakes and fortifications, influencing the flow of Battle) and stuff like having more Canister Shot available to Cannons and, you know, actually having to defend.

My idea for this would be ::

At the start of the round you have a warm up period of say 2 Minutes where everyone is waiting in the Spawn queue, the Commanders of both sides position units and the defending Commander, like said above, can position defensive structures within a certain radius of where his team will spawn. An RNG factor effecting Weather would also compliment this system very well (Rain/fog effecting visibility) and possibly giving Commanders the ability to choose when to attack (light/dark dynamic effecting Battles).

It could genuinely be something special if you took the good aspects from the RO2 Campaign and turned it into what it was actually supposed to be in that Game, maybe even more.

[Patrick Kurtz]

It would be kinda neat if there was something like the dynamic campaign in War Thunder, where you captur one region, then you have the oppurtunity to advance on the next.

[calmmyst]

people in companies should be able to choose the side they wish to be on versus those that are not in companies. I hate that I have to choose playing for the union, when my company is all on the CSA.

[Dman979]

people in companies should be able to choose the side they wish to be on versus those that are not in companies. I hate that I have to choose playing for the union, when my company is all on the CSA.

Sorry, but that seems like a really bad way to design a game. We're not refighting the Civil War, and we're not bound to one side or the other just because we're signed up on a particular company.
Also, that would create a massive split in the community between those who want to hop on and play casually and those who want to fight with a unit.

Best,
Dman979

[Ellowsville]

I Agree

[[65thIL(Co.A)]Lt. Brower]

I agree as well

[calmmyst]

Well I Dont like playing on the union side, my preference is the CSA side, and no its not refighting a civil war, BUT yet this game is just that, or it would not have been developed in the first place. When 90% of my team mates are on the CSA, I dont wish to play against them, not to mention I want to have fun with them. I enjoy talking with them, strategy of what to do as a Team effort. The union side always seem so disorganized, and fight as individuals, the only map they seem to always win is harpers ferry crossing, where its not to hard to fight as individuals and win. If I wanted to choose the union side I would have looked for a union company to join in. I hate that im forced to wait, thats what I must do, to get in with my team mates on the CSA, hoping someone else will choose the union side, or I have to come back later to the game. its also about camaraderie of team mates, learning to fight with along side each other, not against each other................ thus preference of Team companies over individuals, or there would never have been Team companies in the first place. and to your massive split, its in the game heading of War of Rights, it shows the numbers of who joined what side, in the heading, and in the company tool, for volunteering and joining a team based company, we drill as a company, so it would be nice to fight as a company and those individuals can be bumped to the other side, i mean after all there not in a company so as an individual, it dosent matter what side they fight on. when Cody is on the union side they seem to get organized, or people of his caliber. There are times when The 7th TN all goes union. for we wish to fight as a TEAM not split. so companies should be able to fight as a team, we drill as one. and team companies should have preference over individuals. Im sure when Individuals join a Team Company, they too will not want to fight against the team they joined.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

Be a Black Hat Today Enlist Now

and how is this related to the topic???

[Kyle422]

Be a Black Hat Today Enlist Now

You are being verbally warned, keep on topic and DO NOT USE LARGE COLORED TEXT OUTSIDE OF A COMPANY THREAD!. If I see this again or see that you have been spamming I will take further action.

- Kyle