Conquest

[Vingauld]

In age of empires one and two an age of mythology, after you play a random map game and you've finished it, then that's it. There's not much of an achievement other then your own satisfaction, which is ok... but it could be better. In Age of Empires 3 they had the homecity system, everytimme after you played a random map game you could upgrade your home city, leading to more sense of achievement and giving you more motivation to keep playing, however there where some clear disadvantages (which most of you allready know I'm sure).

My idea is to have a singleplayer mode, something like "world" conquest (like in starwars empire at war, forces of corruption expansion there's a galaxy conquest singleplayer mode) in which there's a map of (a part of) the world (considering the setting of the game it probably would make most sense to have a map that only includes the mediterranean and (a part of) europe). This map of the world is divided by different territories and each territory is assigned to one of the players, each player offcourse plays as only one civilisation during this game and the beginning of the game you choose which civilisation you play.

The attacking of territories would happen in a turnbased style; first player one gets t attack one, then two etc. when a player attackt another players territory it loads a scenario, both playes start out with a towncenter etc. and during this the gameplay ispretty much the same as what we expect from the game. The winner of the game get the territory (or keeps it) so if the player is attacked you get the oppertunity to defend it and by crushing your opponent, you have defended it.

As an addition to this, it might be an idea to give certain territories certain traits for example they give you acces to local mercenaries; comparable to Emperor battle for dune, the singleplayer campain mode where you have to attackt territories to gain support from Fremen, Tleilaxu etc. However this might make it a lot harder to implement (not a clue tbh) or maybe it is not desirable to havbe this but it is optional.

I hope it is not to vague and I've been able to describe this idea clearly. If you want to experience something similar you might want to look at the mmentioned games (Emperor: battle for Dune, Star Wars Empire at War in which case you probably need the expansion aswell) also in the campaign mode of Dawn of Ware (the first one) in one of it's many expansion packs the campaign also consists of a similair concept.

[Shield Bearer]

In BME 2 the war of the ring mode was also like this. I prefer playing it in this game mode coz Skirmish is pretty boring.

[AuroN2]

Im sure that this is already planned no?

[Vingauld]

Oh ok, didnt know that xD sorry lol. Great!

[Ykkrosh]

I don't believe we have any firm plans for single-player yet, so it's not too late to discuss ideas for this

Personally I never play multiplayer or skirmishes in RTS games, because I want games to give me a sense of artificial achievement without making me work hard - multiplayer involves too much losing and skirmishes are pointless, so I usually just play the campaigns. I think it'd be good if we had a way to engage players like me without the expense of creating extensive campaigns (though I'd like those too), by building some meaningful framework around skirmish matches.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Perhaps players could win achievement awards by playing different game-types at different difficulties and with different factions. The same could be said for multiplayer.

[plumo]

I beg the developers to leave out achievements. What's next then? DLC?

Age of empires series didnt need achievements to be interesting and fun, a conquer the world ( check pureon 's map ) mode gives skirmish scenarios that little extra, maybe thats a good idea.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Achievements aren't a new concept, while DLC is rather new. If we had a "conquer the world" mode then I would want it to be excellent and not half-assed, like in Rise of Nations (wow, that game's CTW mode sucked). If we can't make it an excellent and fun feature, then I don't want it at all -- I'd rather focus on multiplayer balance and fun features that we can make work reasonably well. Conquer the World sounds like a gigantic feature creep. I'm okay with feature creep, but I could see us working on CTW mode for months and months and still not have a great feature in the end. Games like Rome:Total War built their games with CTW-mode from the ground up, while here CTW mode is essentially an afterthought.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Mythos_Ruler

[plumo]

I was thinking about pureon's map. Placing the six civ's on a sort of european map ( centered around the mediterranean sea ), divided in provinces. Every province is 1 scenario. A bit like the Battle for Middle earth mode.

The twist is that it could begin in a certain time ( 500 BC.) and by scripts we could write the AI of the civ's according to historical accounts.

[Mythos_Ruler]

If we keep it simple, basically like a "random map script" selector, it could work. Instead of selecting random maps from a drop-menu, you click the provinces on the map and it'll load thew appropriate random map (or custom map, Starcraft-style, however we want to do it). Perhaps then you have to win X number of battles per province and then you get that province added to your empire and it would show up graphically on the selection map. Randomly, or scripted, you could get challenges from computer factions that "fight back" and try to wrestle provinces from you. You can have 6 campaign maps active at one time, one for each faction in the game. As you gain more factions you get more challenges from the computer factions and the difficulty goes up. You can start each subsequent battle with variable resources based upon the number of provinces you have conquered.

I didn't mean to sound so harsh in my previous reply. My point is that the CTW mode can't be something so awesome as RTW's campaign map. And other, less illustrious attempts by other games have fallen far short. So.... what we have to do is make it unique, but simple, so that excellence in implementation can be achieved.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Mythos_Ruler

[WhiteTreePaladin]

One thing I would really like in a conquest mode is army persistence between battles.

[Mythos_Ruler]

That might be hard to balance, since then it might be possible to just overrun the enemy towns too quickly.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

Well, shouldn't that actually happen sometimes?

[plumo]

Touché

[Arthur_D]

If we keep it simple, basically like a "random map script" selector, it could work. <snip>

I like that idea.

[plumo]

It shouldn't just be an excuse to attach random maps to a 'game mode'.

We could make it more like Medieval 2: Kingdoms, where we focus on a few civs and in a certain time zone / a part of the map.

F.e , Carthage vs. Rome

Map: western meditteranean:

Civs: Carthaginians, Romans

'Minor civs' Celts & Iberians (more passive).

[Shield Bearer]

I would really like if after every match u get experience and with the experience (or with each level) u can buy certain upgrades for ur civ. for example, the Scout Tower already comes loaded with a few archers or buildings are cheaper or build faster and units get high attributes or something. maybe have them unlock special researches.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Shield Bearer

[feneur]

I would really like if after every match u get experience and with the experience (or with each level) u can buy certain upgrades for ur civ. for example, the Scout Tower already comes loaded with a few archers or buildings are cheaper or build faster and units get high attributes or something. maybe have them unlock special researches.

If that's what one wants one can always play Age of Empires Online I don't think we should stray too far towards that kind of game, especially since there will already be a prominent game like that. Better to focus more on history (both literally as in trying to have more realistic units/graphic style, and more figuratively as in "a more traditional RTS" ). That way there's place for both games, trying to do the same thing will only result in people choosing one or the other and I don't think we could (or should for that matter) try to compete with Microsoft

[Shield Bearer]

i see, didn't read much abt AOEO so i didn't know

its a good idea, IMO. I'm totally gonna try out AOEO then

But i agree, we could use some motivating factor for skirmish matches.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well, I think it's okay to have something like what Amish proposes done in single-player. I just don't like that in multiplayer. In fact, I like the idea of completing challenges as you play the CTW campaign to gain Achievement Awards, such as new technologies to research and other benefits (auto-firing towers, no garrison necessary, would be a nice one!). As long as we don't extend these to multiplayer, I am perfectly fine with it.

[Aldandil]

Personally I never play multiplayer or skirmishes in RTS games, because I want games to give me a sense of artificial achievement without making me work hard - multiplayer involves too much losing and skirmishes are pointless, so I usually just play the campaigns. I think it'd be good if we had a way to engage players like me without the expense of creating extensive campaigns (though I'd like those too), by building some meaningful framework around skirmish matches.

I'm glad that there's somebody on the development team like you Ykkrosh, because that's probably the sort of casual player I'll be, too.

A "world" conquest mode could be a nice framework within which to structure single-player games, especially if the maps are set up with the biome, wildlife, eye candy, and opponents specific to each area you enter. Existing specific maps such as Arcadia could also be thrown in at the appropriate location on the map. So for example, when conquering the province of Arcadia in Hellas, if it takes 10 victories to conquer the province, then of all the single-player battles fought there, one random battle will be located on the Arcadia map, with the rest on random maps set to the Greek environment.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Aldandil

[Alpha of the Eagles]

The best part on having a random-map generator, is that nobody can sit for long enough and just become invincible through exploiting the knowledge of the map. You'll have to search the map for needed resources, whoever you are. That adds to the fun, in my opinion.

[feneur]

Well, I think it's okay to have something like what Amish proposes done in single-player. I just don't like that in multiplayer. In fact, I like the idea of completing challenges as you play the CTW campaign to gain Achievement Awards, such as new technologies to research and other benefits (auto-firing towers, no garrison necessary, would be a nice one!). As long as we don't extend these to multiplayer, I am perfectly fine with it.

True, and I guess I wasn't clear enough I just meant we shouldn't overdo these kind of things, not that we should disregard them completely. Having a mode like this would definitely be nice, who doesn't dream about conquering the world every now and then

[Vingauld]

Meh, too much of a hassle.