Conquer the World!

[Phaedros]

One thing that I did like and it'd be cool to see in the future of 0 A.D. is a Conquer the World style campaign with historic maps based on the focal time periods of the game (500 B.C., 0 AD, 500 AD).

Now how would it work is always the question, and a few games have done fairly well with that, I think every X turns all Civs would advance an Age, Territories could have development levels (1-5, 1 being a humble village and 5 being a thriving polis), being able to recruit armies and possibly improve territories ala Total War and such.

Something to think about, I love brainstorming new ideas.

[Phaedros]

This team is just full of awesome surprises aren't they?

[Jeru]

Yeah, this game mode was considered but scrapped for 0 A.D.

Perhaps in a future expansion pack ("0 A.D. Part II").

[Jeru]

Huh?

[Phaedros]

I definitely hope it makes a return, the assets look beautiful and with some tweaking it could be very awesome.

[SMST]

To be honest, I am pretty bummed if there is no campaign at all. The idea for a Imperial Campaign was awesome, why cut it? If not in the first release, it should definitely be a top priority for a soon-to-come patch. Otherwise, as cool as it is, the game will be pretty dead for me.

[feneur]

Two things: One, the Imperial Campaign is not cut. It's something we can not guarantee that we will be able to include in part one, but we would very much like to have some kind of campaign and a story-based is most likely too time-consuming. Still, it depends on people creating it as with everything else.

Two, part one is just the beginning As long as there are people who are willing to work on the game there will be a future for it (Especially since it's open source, so even if all current contributors would disappear it could still be worked on by someone else. And no, I'm not saying we will disappear. Just that even that would not have to mean the end of the game.) And while we have to decide later exactly how we will structure things after part one (will we do multiple smaller releases or work as we have now and go through a lot of Alphas/Betas and only then release a bigger new release), story-based campaigns/triggers/etc will most definitely be one of the top priorities then

[oshron]

To be honest, I am pretty bummed if there is no campaign at all. The idea for a Imperial Campaign was awesome, why cut it? If not in the first release, it should definitely be a top priority for a soon-to-come patch. Otherwise, as cool as it is, the game will be pretty dead for me.

agreed. of anything that's been cut, triggers should be reinstated, if for no other reason than so a learning campaign can be included, with other campaigns being included in subsequent patches

[Phaedros]

A learning campaign would be great, I'm slightly embarrassed to say I didn't know what to expect when starting out, and it took a moment for me to realize this played like AoE.

[Sighvatr]

Should make a community event. For other games I've played, groups of small communities would play a drawn campaign map in the forums, and post where they move their pieces. I think we should try coming up with something. Say we play Lacadaemons versus Athenians, and players sign up to play under different civilizations. Hold games between players, and then record wins or losses that will affect the map.

[Phaedros]

@Sig: A league system like that is a great idea, although I'd say make it a three-sided affair to keep things interesting.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Re: Learning campaign:

We have experimented with using AI scripts to guide players through a series of learning scenarios and the experiments seemed to work well. This may be how we do it without having to implement and design a trigger system.

Re: Strategic Campaign:

We would very much like to do this, possibly for Part 1, since it would be a LOT less work that narrative campaigns. Just depends how far we'd want to push back a Gold release in order to fit it into development. It's possible we may just cut single player campaigns entirely, keep skirmish maps and random maps, and make Part 1 a multiplayer-focused release.We could then add campaigns in add-on packs as we work on Part 2. There are many ways development could go here.

[Phaedros]

It's good to hear your experiments for learning scenarios is going well, that'll definitely be helpful.

As for the strategic campaign, I think it would definitely be nice to have as many folk enjoy single-player either exclusively or as a break from multiplayer.

[oshron]

Re: Learning campaign:

We have experimented with using AI scripts to guide players through a series of learning scenarios and the experiments seemed to work well. This may be how we do it without having to implement and design a trigger system.

by narrative campaigns, you mean story-based ones like in AOK and AOM, right?

[Mythos_Ruler]

by narrative campaigns, you mean story-based ones like in AOK and AOM, right?

Right. Narrative campaigns have some kind of "story" using triggers and cut scenes, with multiple scenarios linked together in a progression. It would likely take a year just to make a single Narrative Campaign at the pace of development 0 A.D. has, and that would be after all kinds of other development was completed. I think in order to get 0 A.D. to a successful "Gold" release, WFG needs to refocus the scope of the game (focus on single player or multiplayer, not both) and manage expectations.

[oshron]

Right. Narrative campaigns have some kind of "story" using triggers and cut scenes, with multiple scenarios linked together in a progression. It would likely take a year just to make a single Narrative Campaign at the pace of development 0 A.D. has, and that would be after all kinds of other development was completed. I think in order to get 0 A.D. to a successful "Gold" release, WFG needs to refocus the scope of the game (focus on single player or multiplayer, not both) and manage expectations.

what i'd personally recommend for the earliest 0 AD campaigns would be a very basic one where you win or lose if a certain unit or building is destroyed or if you reach a certain part of the map, like in the first AOE game. Part 2 could probably have "true" narrative campaigns with grounded story and narration, though if it ever gets to that more effort should be put into a Learning Campaign

incidentally, Mythos_Ruler, i think it would be most appropriate for you yourself to be the game's narrator when it gets to that

[alkazar-ipse]

Respecting the wish for nice campains...

As for my taste, you can implement the best AI possible, it will still be a boring machine (even if challenging to beat)

So multiplayer is much more of a priority for me (so better gameplay, and not some campain specific heros and such)

Unless you make campains be multiplayer. (persians vs greeks, carthage vs rome, gauls as AI between them)

Idea: You dont fix who winns, at every mission you have a possible branching.

Of course it's hard to make (how to save games if break, and when one is pissed off it stopps...)

So this Idea is very unprobable to get put into practice... Almost unpossible, unrealistic

the branching thing has been done in some games (as stronghold 3) but of course its much easier there, since after a branching the campain is still designed for you to winn, so it's just a different campain...

To decide when a campain is lost or won, you have to define strategic key battles and as already mentionned, when the hope is gone a human losing player would rather stop there, then finish it.

So an alternative is to make a normal campaign against AI, but where you can play for example 3vs3 AI's the whole campain (ie greeks vs 3 persian AIs)

[alkazar-ipse]

edit: I'm not really suggesting it, just sharing thoughts, maybe someone finds them usefull and gets inspired for a good idea, even if completly different

BTW scenarios kinda are a compromize between online games and campain style

Edited October 18, 2012 by alkazar-ipse

[SMST]

Well, I may be part of a minority, but multiplayer isn't really what gets me off about strategy games. I like games that tell a story, preferably with the player as a part of that story. As such, I would love narrative campaigns. On the other hand, these narratives have been seen before in countless RTS games, and Strategic campaigns have not, Rise of Nations (and EE3, but the sooner one forgets about this game, the better ...) being the notable exception. Plus, it would allow to have just one, grand campaign (plus the tutorial) to feature all civilisations. It would be definitely less wotk than a trigger based story campaign.

[alkazar-ipse]

I'd love to see scenarios with no gathering and no building , (ie just a huge fortress, 2 defenders and 2 attackers). A start army that you can only lose, not rebuild.

Some historical stuff, where you can try to win a battle in the way it was or completly differently, or try to find out how the defeat could have been avoided at the time.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I'd love to see scenarios with no gathering and no building , (ie just a huge fortress, 2 defenders and 2 attackers). A start army that you can only lose, not rebuild.

Some historical stuff, where you can try to win a battle in the way it was or completly differently, or try to find out how the defeat could have been avoided at the time.

I wouldn't mind making such scenarios once we have real formations. Would make sense to make some "battle" scenarios and the option to "turn off" construction. Your "base" could be your army's camp.

[oshron]

Well, I may be part of a minority, but multiplayer isn't really what gets me off about strategy games. I like games that tell a story, preferably with the player as a part of that story. As such, I would love narrative campaigns. On the other hand, these narratives have been seen before in countless RTS games, and Strategic campaigns have not, Rise of Nations (and EE3, but the sooner one forgets about this game, the better ...) being the notable exception. Plus, it would allow to have just one, grand campaign (plus the tutorial) to feature all civilisations. It would be definitely less wotk than a trigger based story campaign.

personally, i like the Total War idea for campaigns, since it would be something that isn't really used in RTS games (Total War is real-time tactics and turn-based strategy). however, narrative campaigns a la AOK, AOM, and Empire Earth are definitely easier to make since they're much more linear. therefore, when it gets to that, it would probably be a good idea to include both kinds, with narrative campaigns being the most common (because they'd be easier to make by casual gamers/designers with what material is already in the game)

as for multiplayer "campaigns", it would probably be easier in that case to use a HUGE custom multiplayer map with lots of triggers and different objectives for each player; this was used alot in AOM

[Pedro Falcão]

Rise of Nations works fine. Narative camping are boring 10 maps and done.

Rise of Nations is a game for multiplayer, i got tired of a "campaign" even before finishing it. I still prefer the good old linear style campaign. And maybe in part 2 we can tune those campaigns.

[oshron]

one possibility that comes to mind is that campaigns could only be semi-linear depending on what objectives you accomplished or didn't accomplish. using a fictional example, suppose you had a campaign where you played as the romans and were pitted against the Athenians and Gauls, as well as having a number of domestic goals; if you don't achieve those domestic goals within a certain amount of time (unless you accomplish one of the others sooner) you get a different ending that unlocks an alternative ending where your own people rebel and you forge an alliance with the Athenians. however, if you defeat the Athenians then you get a mission which details that the exhausted Romans were defeated by the Gauls; if you defeat the Gauls, then you get a mission where the Romans and Athenians come to an agreement and join forces to fight a more dangerous mutual enemy.

alternatively, there could be side-stories that are unlocked if you achieve an additional goal in the game, much like in some of the Fire Emblem games; the side-missions wouldn't have much bearing on teh grand scheme of things, but would add more depth to the story and give you hints to some things that you could do in certain missions. for example, in an Alexander the Great campaign (basing my supposition on Empire Earth's Greek campaign) a side-level between the Battle of Tyre and Battle of Gaugamela missions could take place in Egypt and give you hints on how to reinforce your army with Ptolemaic Egyptian units that there would be no indication of otherwise

Edited October 22, 2012 by oshron

[av93]

I'd love to see scenarios with no gathering and no building , (ie just a huge fortress, 2 defenders and 2 attackers). A start army that you can only lose, not rebuild.

Some historical stuff, where you can try to win a battle in the way it was or completly differently, or try to find out how the defeat could have been avoided at the time.

I'd love to see scenarios with no gathering and no building , (ie just a huge fortress, 2 defenders and 2 attackers). A start army that you can only lose, not rebuild.

Some historical stuff, where you can try to win a battle in the way it was or completly differently, or try to find out how the defeat could have been avoided at the time.

Yeah, I agree. starcraft 2 make a good campaign with good features. Instead of researching every tech in every scenario, you points for the advancements like a rpg, sou you don't have to research every scenerio every time the same things, so you can focus in other things...!

I prefer objetives instead the Build & Destroy