Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Single Player Campaign Map vs Multiplayer Real-time Strategic Map


fallendown

Recommended Posts

I've been working on this very concept for a game I was working on, If multiplayer is to be implemented in this game then a real-time campaign map is greatly needed. Instead of being forced to fight a campaign of historical battles the players would dictate the flow of the war. It doesn't have to be as complex as Civil War 2, but some form of strategic movement would add a huge variety to the game. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen in the list of what is to come that two of the battles are "the battle of Washington" and "the battle of Richmond" which makes me assume there will be at least some level of dynamic flow in the singleplayer campaign, and there is no reason I could see that would prevent these great devs from implementing a head-to-head campaign system at the very least. Unless its already being implemented I imagine there may be a lot of difficulty in implementing what yous uggest fallendown with maneouver and so forth, even though its a great idea and I hope it gets implemented. What I do expect is a campaign where I can play as union and my buddy confed, and if I win all the major battles that are historical the last two or three battles of the campaign would have something to do with taking Richmond and making Georgia howl, whereas if my buddy won all the battles there would be a Maryland campaign by the confeds and maybe they capture Pittsburgh or Washington, forcing the end of the war. And if its an even split in victories the campaign may end a bit more historically, with obviously an option for a less decisive confederate victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are describing is exactly how the game flowed in 1997's Civil War Generals 2. This game takes so much from that earlier game. For instance, the armory, weapon selection, and officer promotion in this game were all found in that earlier game, with the weapon store being a direct rip off of CWG2. I prefer a more fluid campaign where I decide what happens. Not a campaign of set piece historical battles with 2 hypothetical ending campaign battles. I played that before in Civil War's General 2 and it got very mundane, and very repetitive, very quickly....

 

Edited by fallendown
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

One of the things that can be looked at is how Hero's and Generals do a dynamic campaign map, clearly you would have to start officers at a lower rank otherwise there will be millions of troops fighting. 

I could see a map of the US with points those points would be tied to different battle maps.  Every "player" would start with just 1 division as you win battles and play you will rank up to control larger armies.  When you log out your "officers" would control the divisions in battle.  Once 1 side wins you reset the map again every one starts over.  It has worked fairly well from what I saw in that game even though that is primarily a FPS if there is enough points you might have smaller battles then every battle being Gettysburg or Fredrickburg.

It would encourage players to work together, and plan there attacks and menuvering on the map as 1 division against 10 even if the AI is controlling the 10 has no chance to win like in real life

Edited by Pilious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...