Campaign Ideas for 0 A.D.

[SMST]

Hi everyone,

recently i have applied for the post of a scenario designer for 0 A.D. I'm not quite sure yet if the developers will take me, but it sounded not too unpromising. Since the game is not in the state yet to start working on campaigns, i am currently making plans for campaigns. I open this thread for me to present you my ideas and for you to post your own ideas, suggestions etc.

General:

I suggest three major campaigns plus one tutorial campaign where you learn the basics of the game. Each of the major campaigns will have a decent size, at the moment i figured 12 scenarios for each.

The campaigns increase in difficulty the later they are dated. The ambition is to include every faction of the game in the three campaigns, as a player culture or as allies and foes.

Tutorial - The Rise of Athens

Period: ~800 - 480 B.C.

Civ: Hellenic/Poleis

Overview: The player learns the basics of the game while he is building up the great city of Athens from its beginnig in Greek's dark age to the time of the Persian Wars.

---

Campaign 1 - Alexander The Great

Period: 338 - 323 B.C.

Civ: Hellenic/Macedonian

Overview: Follow Alexander on his quest to conquer the Persian Empire ... and beyond.

---

Campaign 2 - The Punic Wars

Period: 264 - 201 B.C.

Civ: Roman

Overview: Covers the first and the second Punic War on the Roman side.

---

Campaign 3 - The Queen of Britain

Period: 60 - 61 A.D.

Civ: Celtic/Britons

Overview: The uprising of the Britain Celts against Rome under Boadicea (Boudicca). Presumably with a "happy ending", which means eventual victory, though historically the uprising was crushed.

---

These are my ideas, i have worked out the first campaign (Alexander) quite far. Now, what are your ideas? What do you want to see in a campaign for 0 A.D.? Maybe something completely different?

Greetings,

SMST

Edited April 12, 2010 by SMST

[Sophokles]

Very clever. The only problem is that I don't see a decent Iberian role.

Which raises the question, do they deserve a campaign? Witness the following threadCampaign Mode

[SMST]

Yeah. The Iberians. That is also a problem that i see. I spent some thoughts on the possibility to replace the Celtic Campaign with an Iberian one.

Pro Iberian:

- a VERY unique civ, never seen or heard of any game that included them

- defensive guerilla tactics, as described, could be used to design some challenging scenarios

Pro Celtic:

- temperate setting (despite Iberians, who would again, as Greeks and Romans do, live in the Mediterranean)

- completely different style (each civ has, but especially this one)

- well, lets say, some kind of personal love for the Celtic culture

I ended up choosing the Celtic variant, because i saw an oppurtunity to include the Iberians into the Punic Wars Campaign, though i am not satisfied altogether with that solution.

Another possibility:

A fourth Iberian campaign. But that would mean, we have essentially the same ground theme as in the Celtic Campaign, which is rebellion - and again, against Romans ...

Edit:

The other thread is witnessed.

@Moderation: Any possibility to merge those two threads since they cover the same topic?

Edited April 12, 2010 by SMST

[Garick]

Question:

Will the campaigns be historically accurate? And none the last: Is possible use campaigns in the styles of "what if" making changes in the course of the campaign deppending on results?

[SMST]

Will the campaigns be historically accurate?

As accurate as i can make them. Sometimes, it might be neccessary to shape history a bit due to gameplay and balancing issues, but they are supposed to be accurate.

And none the last: Is possible use campaigns in the styles of "what if" making changes in the course of the campaign deppending on results?

You mean, that the player achieves a goal in one scenario and that will have effects throughout the rest of the campaign?

That would be pretty cool, and would definitivley add some depth to the gameplay.

[Garick]

You mean, that the player achieves a goal in one scenario and that will have effects throughout the rest of the campaign?

That would be pretty cool, and would definitivley add some depth to the gameplay.

Well, that was not my idea, in the core, but you really raised a point!

- Probably, in the begginning or in differente points of the campaigns, the player recieve a list of goals to choose one, like:

"exterminate, in all maps, enemys of that civilization" if he acomplishes this, next map and next map and next maps the enemis will becoming weaker, because of the heavy losses

or

"Every map you should end with more than X of Y resource ou resurces" if he acomplishes this optional quest on the following map he starts with extra resources, to show him that his economic prowess really payed for!

or

"You should lose, no more tham x% of all your military units in every map". If it Happens, on next maps his soldiers, if the game counts with veterancy, will start more experienced, to reflect that he is using good soldiers, hardened by the heat of former battles.

Those for instance are few "optional objctive-quest lines" that should reward (not punish, to not harm the gameplay) the player that tryes to follow one path in war.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Garick

[SMST]

Well, that was not my idea, in the core, but you really raised a point!

Well, i was not sure what you meant exactly. Perhaps you could explain it in simple English to a poor German student.

- Probably, in the begginning or in differente points of the campaigns, the player recieve a list of goals to choose one, like:

"exterminate, in all maps, enemys of that civilization" if he acomplishes this, next map and next map and next maps the enemis will becoming weaker, because of the heavy losses

"Every map you should end with more than X of Y resource ou resurces" if he acomplishes this optional quest on the following map he starts with extra resources, to show him that his economic prowess really payed for!

"You should lose, no more tham x% of all your military units in every map". If it Happens, on next maps his soldiers, if the game counts with veterancy, will start more experienced, to reflect that he is using good soldiers, hardened by the heat of former battles.

Yeah, there are plenty of uses for that feature. Especially when you are dealing with a campaign that covers one war drive, so the game could actually memorize how many soldiers were left in the last scenario and that would affect with how many soldiers you start in the next ... that would contribute to the atmosphere of the campaigns a lot!

[Garick]

basicaly i meant that the goal stuff was not my original idea, but you mentioned it, and that was a good idea.

Campaign with sequell would be awesome, not exactly the same units, but at least one part of "good experienced soldiers"

[SMST]

Campaign with sequell would be awesome, not exactly the same units, but at least one part of "good experienced soldiers"

Yeah. One of the designers could make a short statement if something like that is going to be implemented.

[feneur]

We've had discussions about this, but in general we came to the conclusion that having campaigns where the exact outcome of one scenario would affect another would add too much complexity. It would for example be very hard to balance a scenario if you don't know how many units a player will have from the beginning. It's not very likely to be a feature in the official campaigns (that does to some extent depend on the scenario desginers, if we have some campaigns implemented and there are people who want to spend the time getting things to work, and it's easy to implement the needed code, then it could happen), and thus support for it in the engine isn't a priority. The game is Open Source however, so there's nothing stopping someone else from writing the code that makes it possible and submit it to us. Then we might include that feature in the engine even if we don't use it ourselves.

So, in short, not likely, but this game isn't done until it's done so if things change it could happen.

[Garick]

well, without concerning about the codes, but map and mod editors, that would be possible too?

[Ykkrosh]

I think it should be pretty easy to implement support for transferring data between scenarios in a campaign - the game will already have to remember information like what map you've reached and I guess a score or something, and scenarios should be able to run arbitrary JavaScript code, so the scenario scripts could give the engine some data when finishing and the engine could save it and pass it to the initialisation code of the next scenario. You'd have to write a bit of your own script code to make that work (it wouldn't all be a point-and-click GUI) but you can just copy from examples so it should be fairly straightforward.

I'd agree with the probable gameplay balance problems, though - it makes everything much harder to test (you can't just test a scenario by itself, you've got to test it in all the different starting modes), and it's not nice if an inexperienced player who loses a lot of units in one battle starts the next battle at a significant disadvantage and finds it even more difficult. And people will decide they have to exploit the system, e.g. defeat the enemy but leave one unit alive for half an hour while gathering as many resources as possible to take into the next level, which harms the enjoyability of the game. So you need to be very careful with this kind of thing

[Garick]

I think it should be pretty easy to implement support for transferring data between scenarios in a campaign - the game will already have to remember information like what map you've reached and I guess a score or something, and scenarios should be able to run arbitrary JavaScript code, so the scenario scripts could give the engine some data when finishing and the engine could save it and pass it to the initialisation code of the next scenario. You'd have to write a bit of your own script code to make that work (it wouldn't all be a point-and-click GUI) but you can just copy from examples so it should be fairly straightforward.

Sounds good, but it wouldn't make the game runs slower or consume more memory? (not a bit more, but a lot more, because as far as i know Java sometimes can be veeeery "heavy")

I'd agree with the probable gameplay balance problems, though - it makes everything much harder to test (you can't just test a scenario by itself, you've got to test it in all the different starting modes), and it's not nice if an inexperienced player who loses a lot of units in one battle starts the next battle at a significant disadvantage and finds it even more difficult. And people will decide they have to exploit the system, e.g. defeat the enemy but leave one unit alive for half an hour while gathering as many resources as possible to take into the next level, which harms the enjoyability of the game. So you need to be very careful with this kind of thing

But the point could be:

- you win the scenario and for instance starts the next one with a bit more units more experienced beuce you kicked-@#$% last map. Now you earned a little advantage. It couldn't be fixed by making the computer start with... let's say 50% of the advantage you recieved? Just for make the fight a bit more harder for the computer (or a bit easyer for you) but of course, not that could end the chalenge, because is here that lives one importante point:

-> games should be: fun, nice, run smooth, challenging and balanced.

As far as i can see, beta-testing the game will not be a dificult.

[feneur]

First, JavaScript and Java have nothing to do with each other apart from the "java" part of their names, confusing yeah, but sometimes that's how things are.

Second, most of the actual gameplay code is/will be written in JavaScript, so it will need to be fast enough in the first place, and one more or less script shouldn't affect the speed noticeably.

[Garick]

First, JavaScript and Java have nothing to do with each other apart from the "java" part of their names, confusing yeah, but sometimes that's how things are. tongue.gif

Second, most of the actual gameplay code is/will be written in JavaScript, so it will need to be fast enough in the first place, and one more or less script shouldn't affect the speed noticeably.

got it ^^

[oshron]

well in the original AOM campaign, there was one scenario (which took place in a dream) that started in one map, and then a trigger already in the game loaded a second map to finish the scenario. d'you think something like that could be implemented? like meeting certain requirements during a given scenario loads a different map, like if you reach the end of the first part and you have a certain number of units, you go on a different path than you would if you have less of those units

[plumo]

Personally, I demand a iberian campaign or at least some seperate scenarios like AOK: the conquerors. The siege of NUmantia! google it

[Hiram]

That AOM scenario doesnt really work like that, is just that the first "dreamy part" was a cinematic scenario, wich once it would run, it just loads the next one without showing the you win/loose, remember you could edit the victory conditions, leaving even none.

So it wasn't one scenario with two maps, but a cinematic scenario and a playable scenario.

[plumo]

Has anyone played rise of nations: expansion?

I particularly liked the fact that choices in campagin scenario 1 influenced campagin scenario 2 for example.

For example, playing as Rome, Do you ally yourself with the Hellenes in Syracuse to attack the Carthagians ? If so, perhaps next mission they turn against you. If not, they might help you in the first scenario.

[Bladex1200]

Perhaps having alternate campaigns would build upon the idea of optional objectives.

For example, let's say you're playing as the Romans and you're goal is to defeat Carthage in the First Punic War. You're given a secondary objective of looting various Carthaginian villages which are not along your route, but you will get an unnamed prize for your patience and work.

Each village is pretty hard to raid (lots of defenders and defenses) but you work through it. What happens?

The game triggers a scripted sequence whereby your original campaign (First Punic War) is rendered null and instead you get a host of new missions on an alternate campaign, where your goal is to establish a second Roman capital in North Africa. The possibilities from there are endless:

1. A whole new secret campaign of Civil War in Rome (Romans vs. the colonies in North Africa).

2. Unlockable bonuses, such as scripted reinforcements in later battles (you complete the alternate campaign, and then return to the original Punic War, except with scripted reinforcements).

3. Possibly a tie-in with a separate campaign (you might have an easier or harder time on the "Queen of Briton" Campaign, depending on how strong the Roman foothold on North Africa is).

Now, I know these might me hard to implement but they'll provide hours of replayability as you never know what campaigns you might be missing by not completing secondary objectives.

It's just a thought.

EDIT: Taking it one step further, BONUS campaigns (unrelated to secondary objectives).

Not everything has to be historical. Yes, 0 A.D. is aimed at being historically accurate as well as fun, but having a little bonus after finishing the main campaigns doesn't hurt. The bonus doesn't even have to be a real storyline - it could just be a whole bunch of humorous or interesting side missions (Think: 0 A.D: Gaiden). For example, beating all the campaigns on easy unlocks 10 extra missions, beating it on medium unlocks 5 more (in addition to the 10), and beating on hard unlocks all 20 extra missions.

They could be as mundane as simply rebuilding a village while under siege (see how fast you can rebuild it back to full strength; the longer you take, the harder each wave of enemies gets) or could even be as elaborate as a mini-hero quest (one full map where you complete various quests to build up a kingdom - again, catering to the RTS aspect - and in the end you build up your forces to defeat both a band of raiders and an evil monster thing.)

The bonus missions would be a big addition for people who get the game (let's say from a friend who also has it) but don't have an internet fast enough to maintain a multiplayer match (I, for example, have a fast internet most any given time, but sometimes it slows to a crawl and I can't play a single online game or even surf the web). Also, bonus missions would give people more motivation to beat the game on harder difficulties (many people play the campaign once and never touch it again, which is a shame).

Edited April 26, 2010 by Bladex1200

[plumo]

- I think optional objectives are not an issue, and will certainly be used ... but scripts running through a campaign?

- I also would like to see a 'battles of the conquerors' adaptation: 0 AD-style. Perhaps the Iberians are not 'interesting' enough for a complete campaign, but at least one scenario should be included.

This 'campaign' can also be used to group scenario's who take place in the same setting but other time: f.e. 'Punic Wars', taking events from all three wars to make it more interesting for the player.

- Concerning civil war: is it not boring to fight against the same faction ?

[SMST]

- I think optional objectives are not an issue, and will certainly be used ... but scripts running through a campaign?

Of course, if possible, i want to use additional objectives.

Concerning scripts:

Did anyone here play Rise and Fall? The campaigns are rather anti-historical ... but there was the feature, that technologies in campaign mode were quite expensive, but the developments of the first scenario was kept for the following scenarios, and so on. For example: You have researched an upgrade for your swordsmen in the finished scenario, and if you move on in campaign , you will still have the upgraded units, whereas you'd have to continue with the old units if you hadn't researched the upgrade.

- I also would like to see a 'battles of the conquerors' adaptation: 0 AD-style. Perhaps the Iberians are not 'interesting' enough for a complete campaign, but at least one scenario should be included.

That would be great, it would be also possible to include the two other civs that are not included in my campaign ideas - Carthage and Persia.

It would be great for a 0 A.D. Conquerors Campaign to have one or two scenario(s) for each featured civ, which would mean 6(12) scenarios in total.

Some initial thoughts:

Celts: The Sack of Rome (featuring game Hero Brennus)/The Battle of Gergovia (featuring game hero Vercingetorix)

Hellennes: The Battle of Leuctra (Thebes against Sparta)/The Siege of Rhodos (featuring game hero Demeterius and the editor only unit "Helepolis")

Carthagenians: The Siege of Sagunt/The Battle of Cannae (both featuring Hannibal, allow the player to witness the Punic War Campaign (the second one of my suggestions) from the other perspective.

Persians: This is though. One could recreate the rise of the empire (which would basically mean fighting other Persians resembling the Medians, Lydians, Babylonians etc.) or the battles against Greece (which they mainly lost) or the Roman conquest (which would be historically inaccurate since the Acaemenids were already gone at that time) ... any suggestions?

Iberians: I know not too much about that civ, but i would suggest one scenario against Carthage, one against Rome to add diversity. Both defensive scenarios due to the civ's special abilities.

Rome: The Battle of Pydna (against Macedonia)/The First Civil War (game Hero Sulla against Marius, although i have to admit ... fighting the own faction is not as much fun.)

This 'campaign' can also be used to group scenario's who take place in the same setting but other time: f.e. 'Punic Wars', taking events from all three wars to make it more interesting for the player.

Well, the third war isn't all that interesting, is it? Since Carthage did not have any defenses equal to the Roman forces, it would be rather boring.

For the first two, see above. We have both the whole war on the Roman side and two Carthagenian Scenarios in the 'Conquerors Campaign'.

- Concerning civil war: is it not boring to fight against the same faction ?

See above.

Edited May 5, 2010 by SMST

[Mythos_Ruler]

Iberians could easily show up in a Punic Wars campaign.

[Radagast]

I think that the campaign against Quintus Sertorius would make an awesome Iberian Campaign. Some ideas for factions:

*(player) Quintus Sertorius, brilliant Roman general who rebels against Lucius Cornelius Sulla's government and flees to Iberia; combination Roman and Iberian troops.

*(enemy) Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus Pious, methodical Roman personally selected by Sulla to contain Sertorius. Shrewd, but does not have the reputation of a great general.

*(enemy) Gnaeus Pompeius "Magnus", overconfident son of a barbaric general; still, he might prove to be a major problem if he can keep his veterans alive.

*(potential ally) Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus and a man with a keen interest in distracting Rome from the East.

*(neutral) Hellenic colonies, potential supply or navy bases, assuming they can be persuaded to join you or are conquered.

*(potential interloper) Ptolemy V Alutes, ruler of Macedonian Egypt (not Pharaoh, much to his chagrin). Has ambitions to make Alexandria the new Carthage and rather resentful of Sulla, his "benefactor".

Historically, Quintus Sertorius did not loose the war, but was murdered by his ex-Roman collegues. This could be a "what if" scenario, namely "What if Sertorius's legates were loyal?"

Edited May 9, 2010 by Radagast

[Alpha of the Eagles]

Hi everyone, I'm new to this boards, but have known about 0 A.D. for a while.

I have this grand idea for an awesome Hellenic campaign which will have everything from the quarrels between the poleis, the colonization era, Greco-Persian war etc. Would I (probably in later stages of this game) be allowed to create such a campaign as a sort of add-on for us Hellenic-fans?

Here follows some comments to the first post of this thread, since that's why I really registered here:

Tutorial - The Rise of Athens

Period: ~800 - 480 B.C.

Civ: Hellenic/Poleis

Overview: The player learns the basics of the game while he is building up the great city of Athens from its beginnig in Greek's dark age to the time of the Persian Wars.

Don't think this would be a bit massive as a tutorial, but better off as a "first campaign?"

I would suggest a smaller scenario such as retaking Rome from Celts under Brennus as a tutorial, while your suggestion works better as an introduction to sea-warfare.

Campaign 3 - The Queen of Britain

Period: 60 - 61 A.D.

Civ: Celtic/Britons

Overview: The uprising of the Britain Celts against Rome under Boadicea (Boudicca). Presumably with a "happy ending", which means eventual victory, though historically the uprising was crushed.

Boudica, winning? Just as realistic as the Persians defeating Alexander. If you want the Britons to win, how about the first Roman attempt at invading the island? It was a humiliating defeat for the Romans, and an epic win for the Britons. They would cling on to the memory of this when attempting to break free from oppression later.

Oh, and I'll slap myself around to write an introduction later.