Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

[Grautvornix]

Please don't misunderstand - my point was not to criticise and I do enjoy the passionate discussion in this forum about historical aspects of the game!

Just believe we should make it interesting to a beginner, and this motivation would most likely be increased if the scenario and the civ was a popular, well-known one. (Also the map needs to be beautifu; we just have so many beautiful maps it is difficult to select onel )

[Vantha]

What about Alexandria Eschate ?

It was the most remote colony founded by Alexander, in the very northeastern corner of the empire. Some conflicts with the Scythians are recorded in its early days.

Most interestingly, though, they also fought (and lost) a large war against the Han Chinese - yes, the War of the Heavenly Horses. An incredibly fascinating piece of history. I mean, ancient Greeks meeting and fighting the ancient Chinese, how cool is that?

There are some issues with this idea too, though, as said war took place more than a century after the foundation, when Alexandria Eschate was already part of the (also really interesting) Greco-Bactrian kingdom. So, it would require a significant time jump; I'm already breaking my own principles...

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 minutes ago, Vantha said:

Significant time jump

Graphic description.

 

+++++

It's good for Alexander's campaign.

And it opens the door for campaigns by Asian factions.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Grautvornix said:

Please don't misunderstand - my point was not to criticise and I do enjoy the passionate discussion in this forum about historical aspects of the game!

Just believe we should make it interesting to a beginner, and this motivation would most likely be increased if the scenario and the civ was a popular, well-known one. (Also the map needs to be beautifu; we just have so many beautiful maps it is difficult to select onel )

It's normal, it's a debate where everyone defends their points.

That's why I'm going to try to reuse all the ideas presented. They all work.

[Vantha]

On 28/10/2024 at 4:41 PM, Genava55 said:

The other solution would be Hasdrubal the Fair, he was the predecessor of Hannibal and he founded Cartagena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasdrubal_the_Fair

https://punicwars.org/people/hasdrubal-the-fair

This idea has a lot of potential in my opinion. While not comparable to Alexandria or Syracuse, Carthago Nova (modern-day Cartagena) still offers considerable historical significance. The required civs are the Carthaginians (the founders) and the Iberians (enemies) both of which are already fully playable in the vanilla version. The hero of the story would be Hasdrubal the Fair - whom we don't have yet, but besides him no new game content would need to be created at all.
Additionally, many people, even if not particularly into history, have heard of Hannibal, Carthage, and the Punic Wars before. Mostly from the Roman side, though, so this campaign could open a new, interesting perspective on the conflict.

Edited October 30 by Vantha

[ShadowOfHassen]

33 minutes ago, Vantha said:

This idea has a lot of potential in my opinion. While not comparable to Alexandria or Syracuse, Carthago Nova (modern-day Cartagena) still offers considerable historical significance. The required civs are the Carthaginians (the founders) and the Iberians (enemies) both of which are already fully playable in the vanilla version. The hero of the story would be Hasdrubal the Fair - whom we don't have yet, but besides him no new game content would need to be created at all.
Additionally, many people, even if not particularly into history, have heard of Hannibal, Carthage, and the Punic Wars before. Mostly from the Roman side, though, so this campaign could open a new, interesting perspective on the conflict.

That matches my criteria , I think.

[Vantha]

I researched for more ideas, but didn't find anything promising.

 

My pick remains Carthago Nova. It's as good of an option as we're gonna find in my opinion. What do you all think?

 

@ShadowOfHassen My problem with Athenian colonies in Thrace is that we lack the Thracians as a civilization in the vanilla game. And, in the grand scope, most of those colonies were rather insignificant.

[ShadowOfHassen]

1 minute ago, Vantha said:

@ShadowOfHassen My problem with Athenian colonies in Thrace is that we lack the Thracians as a civilization in the vanilla game. And, in the grand scope, most of those colonies were rather insignificant.

I like the Carthage one too. The basic outlines we made I think still work for that, and it fits our criteria. With the Thrace colonies, I was just trying to find somewhere with a fairly well known civilization that would fit, I'm happy we found something better.

[Vantha]

If no one objects, let's move forward with this idea.

First thing we need is maps.

@Lion.Kanzen@wowgetoffyourcellphone You said you could create some?

 

[ShadowOfHassen]

1 hour ago, Vantha said:

If no one objects, let's move forward with this idea.

First thing we need is maps.

@Lion.Kanzen@wowgetoffyourcellphone You said you could create some?

 

I would suggest we make a document with information for each of the four scenarios containing exactly what players need to learn in what order, and make the maps to work with that.

For example if the first scenario is just them exploring, we kind of need to know for how long and what they need to do, so we can build a map with everything.

Plus we need to research the region and see what it looked like and figure out how big the maps we need.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

We have to do some research on where the events take place and see what the combat area looks like on a map.

I have not been able to see where it is and what enemies there are.

Edited November 2 by Lion.Kanzen

[Vantha]

Some references for the terrain and topography around Carthago Nova:

Spoiler

[Lion.Kanzen]

21 minutes ago, Vantha said:

Some references for the terrain and topography around Carthago Nova:

  Hide contents

It seems pretty easy to copy.

[Vantha]

Alright, here is what I envision for scenario 0:

 

Scenario 0 will neither to last the length of a full game nor feel like it. Instead, it is only supposed to introduce players to the basic controls and UI.

The map more or less covers the following area:

Spoiler

The player starts in the southwestern/bottom-left corner with a couple of soldiers, women, and the hero, but no structures, and is told to scout the land for a suitable place to build the colony. Because there are no ships yet, the player is indirectly forced to make their way counter-clockwise around the map. On the way, two things happen: Firstly, the player finds a treasure and collects it. He is then told to collect enough treasures more from around the map to afford a civic center. Secondly, a few wild animals attack some of his units, and the player learns the basics of combat. Eventually, he will find his way onto the target peninsula and is ordered to construct a civic center here. The player "wins" the game as soon as the construction of this civic center is finished.

 

What do you think?

Edited November 2 by Vantha

[Grautvornix]

14 minutes ago, Vantha said:

Alright, here is what I envision for scenario 0:

 

Scenario 0 will neither to last the length of a full game nor feel like it. Instead, it is only supposed to introduce players to the basic controls and UI.

The map more or less covers the following area:

  Hide contents

The player starts in the southwestern/bottom-left corner with a couple of soldiers, women, and the hero, but no structures, and is told to scout the land for a suitable place to build the colony. Because there are no ships yet, the player is indirectly forced to make their way counter-clockwise around the map. On the way, two things happen: Firstly, the player finds a treasure and collects it. He is then told to collect enough treasures more from around the map to afford a civic center. Secondly, a few wild animals attack some of his units, and the player learns the basics of combat. Eventually, he will find his way onto the target peninsula and is ordered to construct a civic center here. The player "wins" the game as soon as the construction of this civic center is finished.

 

What do you think?

Sounds like a great plan!

[Genava55]

On 28/10/2024 at 9:04 PM, Vantha said:

Massalia would be cool, but it has the same issues as Cyrene, Syracuse, and Tarentum: We don't have the involved civilizations in the game.

I'm rather concerned to hear these comments. How do you imagine we'll ever be able to include the Greco-Persian Wars, the Peloponnesian Wars or even the Punic Wars as playable campaigns, if we get stuck at the first non-playable faction?

Wasn't it simply a lack of vision at the start of the game's development? I'm thinking in particular of the split of the generic Greek faction into two factions with Athens and Sparta. I think we should have umbrella factions which should allow us to incorporate minor factions into the game and even take advantage of them to include them in innovative game strategies.

It's extremely difficult to bring variety to building design. Creating factions that are entirely dedicated to one people has a significant cost from a conceptual point of view. The risk is of producing uninspiring, sloppy content by having to vary the designs for the same cultural sphere, or of giving up on including certain peoples altogether because of this challenge. And multiplying the selectable factions by including lots of peoples from the same cultural sphere is simply going to make the UI less interesting and less user-friendly. If we have to add Thebes, Corinth, Syracuse and Massalia as playable factions, we're walking on our heads. However, these city-states are interesting and can bring in lots of units, technology and interesting bonuses.

I think that umbrella factions can integrate these minor factions in interesting and diverse ways. In the case of the Greeks, we can imagine starting with a generic affiliation to the Greek faction and quickly having a first choice offered in the civic centre building to move towards Athens or Sparta. Each brings different bonuses and different units that can be used quickly. However, the player can continue as a generic faction to unlock other choices such as Corinth, Thebes or Syracuse in the next phase.

This is just a rough draft to illustrate how it might work. But I really think it's a better approach to bringing diversity into the game without degrading the visual quality of the game and without bringing in too much art.  Umbrella factions can also address the problem of balancing civilisations that are either too weak because of a lack of variety, or too strong because of too great a diversity of units and technologies. The fact that certain units are dependent on specific choices can lead to interesting strategies and counter-strategies.

This approach could also solve problems such as that of the Iberians. Which is still a faction implemented as a patchwork of three very different cultures. Introducing the option of choosing sub-factions or minor factions during the game would highlight the differences within the Iberian Peninsula without creating new, similar designs. I'm thinking in particular of the difference between the Iberians and the Celtiberians, who were culturally, politically and linguistically very different, but who had points in common in the architecture of their cities and fortresses. The aim of my proposal is to take advantage of the diversity of the ancient world without overloading the game with too many elements. But also to allow for diversity in the scenarios, and to allow for a respectful treatment of ancient peoples and cultures. 

[ShadowOfHassen]

10 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

I'm rather concerned to hear these comments. How do you imagine we'll ever be able to include the Greco-Persian Wars, the Peloponnesian Wars or even the Punic Wars as playable campaigns, if we get stuck at the first non-playable faction?

Wasn't it simply a lack of vision at the start of the game's development? I'm thinking in particular of the split of the generic Greek faction into two factions with Athens and Sparta. I think we should have umbrella factions which should allow us to incorporate minor factions into the game and even take advantage of them to include them in innovative game strategies.

It's extremely difficult to bring variety to building design. Creating factions that are entirely dedicated to one people has a significant cost from a conceptual point of view. The risk is of producing uninspiring, sloppy content by having to vary the designs for the same cultural sphere, or of giving up on including certain peoples altogether because of this challenge. And multiplying the selectable factions by including lots of peoples from the same cultural sphere is simply going to make the UI less interesting and less user-friendly. If we have to add Thebes, Corinth, Syracuse and Massalia as playable factions, we're walking on our heads. However, these city-states are interesting and can bring in lots of units, technology and interesting bonuses.

I think that umbrella factions can integrate these minor factions in interesting and diverse ways. In the case of the Greeks, we can imagine starting with a generic affiliation to the Greek faction and quickly having a first choice offered in the civic centre building to move towards Athens or Sparta. Each brings different bonuses and different units that can be used quickly. However, the player can continue as a generic faction to unlock other choices such as Corinth, Thebes or Syracuse in the next phase.

This is just a rough draft to illustrate how it might work. But I really think it's a better approach to bringing diversity into the game without degrading the visual quality of the game and without bringing in too much art.  Umbrella factions can also address the problem of balancing civilisations that are either too weak because of a lack of variety, or too strong because of too great a diversity of units and technologies. The fact that certain units are dependent on specific choices can lead to interesting strategies and counter-strategies.

This approach could also solve problems such as that of the Iberians. Which is still a faction implemented as a patchwork of three very different cultures. Introducing the option of choosing sub-factions or minor factions during the game would highlight the differences within the Iberian Peninsula without creating new, similar designs. I'm thinking in particular of the difference between the Iberians and the Celtiberians, who were culturally, politically and linguistically very different, but who had points in common in the architecture of their cities and fortresses. The aim of my proposal is to take advantage of the diversity of the ancient world without overloading the game with too many elements. But also to allow for diversity in the scenarios, and to allow for a respectful treatment of ancient peoples and cultures. 

So to kind of reiterate you’re thinking something like age of mythology where you pick a different god , but instead you eventually just pick a civilization to allign yourself with?

 

that would drastically change the game but I kind of like it. That would solve some of our problems and make aging up a bit more game changing 

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

So to kind of reiterate you’re thinking something like age of mythology where you pick a different god , but instead you eventually just pick a civilization to allign yourself with?

Basically yes. This is a good analogy. Choosing between a city-state, a tribe or something else, with the idea that it's part of a strategy. In some cases it can be very specialized and in other cases a bit more general.

[ShadowOfHassen]

20 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Basically yes. This is a good analogy. Choosing between a city-state, a tribe or something else, with the idea that it's part of a strategy. In some cases it can be very specialized and in other cases a bit more general.

I'm kind of for that idea, I don't know if everyone would. At the very least genericing out the units would make it easier to do civilizations.

It would have to be something  a lot of people would have to agree on. (I'd also probably require us to redo the encylopedia, but that's OK) if you want we could open another discussion forum post on it.

[Vantha]

17 hours ago, Genava55 said:

I'm rather concerned to hear these comments. How do you imagine we'll ever be able to include the Greco-Persian Wars, the Peloponnesian Wars or even the Punic Wars as playable campaigns, if we get stuck at the first non-playable faction?

Well, there's a difference between tutorial campaigns and ordinary campaigns, no? The purpose of the first is to present the game's most characterising content while the purpose of the second one is to offer something new and outlandish.

That being said, I believe your proposal has good potential and would indeed bring improvements in some ways. However, it would require a revamp of the game's design and vision - something that should only be done with great caution. Not to mention the huge amounts of effort required to implement it. And the concept should be discussed in a separate thread.

[Ultimate Aurelian]

On one hand it would allow to add more civs.

On the other hand the existing civs might be downgraded to some degree when they are merged into an umbrella civ.

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 03/11/2024 at 4:22 PM, Genava55 said:

Wasn't it simply a lack of vision at the start of the game's development? I'm thinking in particular of the split of the generic Greek faction into two factions with Athens and Sparta.

Again, you assume a lot. The original designers had plenty of "vision." However, they limited the game design in order for it to be a feasible project. The generic Hellenes faction was eventually split from "Hellenes" to Athenians, Spartans, and Macedonians, since the original Hellenes lumped all "city-states" into one Poleis sub-faction and then the Macedonians as the other sub-faction. Essentially, it functioned much like the old Seleucid reforms techs used to, by simply unlocking a couple of different champions and heroes. This was very limiting and didn't allow the game to show the real differences between these historical civilizations, so the idea to split them up into their own full-fledged factions took root. I'm glad it went that way. 

 

Quote

I'm rather concerned to hear these comments. How do you imagine we'll ever be able to include the Greco-Persian Wars, the Peloponnesian Wars or even the Punic Wars as playable campaigns, if we get stuck at the first non-playable faction?

Quite frankly, all three of those campaigns would be possible with only some minor adjustments with the current civs we have as-is. This concern alone isn't enough to add additional complexity. Triggers and custom assets for a campaign have always been understood as necessary and would be enough to tailor the civs to anything we need.

 

On 03/11/2024 at 4:22 PM, Genava55 said:

But also to allow for diversity in the scenarios, and to allow for a respectful treatment of ancient peoples and cultures. 

The game is already supremely diverse and respectful of ancient cultures.

[Lion.Kanzen]

10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Again, you assume a lot. The original designers had plenty of "vision." However, they limited the game design in order for it to be a feasible project. The generic Hellenes faction was eventually split from "Hellenes" to Athenians, Spartans, and Macedonians, since the original Hellenes lumped all "city-states" into one Poleis sub-faction and then the Macedonians as the other sub-faction. Essentially, it functioned much like the old Seleucid reforms techs used to, by simply unlocking a couple of different champions and heroes. This was very limiting and didn't allow the game to show the real differences between these historical civilizations, so the idea to split them up into their own full-fledged factions took root. I'm glad it went that way. 

 

Quite frankly, all three of those campaigns would be possible with only some minor adjustments with the current civs we have as-is. This concern alone isn't enough to add additional complexity. Triggers and custom assets for a campaign have always been understood as necessary and would be enough to tailor the civs to anything we need.

 

The game is already supremely diverse and respectful of ancient cultures.

We will have to add complexity, triggers and all that as we develop the maps.

For now we have to take the clay, which is the base game, and work to shape it.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Hannibal's trip to Rome would be cool. Perfectly suited for a campaign, we have the civs, and its famous.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Could do some ptol vs roman naval campaign, like the battle of Actium

Edited November 8 by real_tabasco_sauce