Campaigns

[McAllisterw]

I couldn't find much written about this, or a thread for discussion of campaigns, but what are the concepts at the moment for how the campaign part of the game will work? I've seen there are campaign-map style models available in Atlas for things like champions and cities so presume that campaigns would be fought across a map rendered in Pyrogenesis and subdividided into territories in a similar manner to Total War, but I could be wrong. I'm sorry if there is a thread somewhere that I failed to find.

As I see it, you could have a Total War (or the various Space 4x games if you choose to look outside Total War for inspiration) style Grand Campaign, where different factions start of with single territories and then duke it out for overall supremacy. In the Space 4x genre, this is often customisable, so the game can be played with different victory conditions. You could play it so that you don't win until you own the whole map, or a percentage of it; or you could set victory conditions that can be achieved by having cultural dominance, or achieving a certain technological level etc.

I imagine the grand-campaign will be popular, but was also thinking about historical scenario campaigns which will offer something different to what Total War does, as well as satiating the people's thirst for historical context. These campaigns will have fixed starting conditions, victory conditions and possibly different campaign maps (if th theatre of war was smaller than the whole Old World)

I've thought of some examples, not sure what a good engaging victory condition would be for the defending factions in most cases though. Simply holding on to the territories you start the game with could be a bit boring.

The Hunnic Invasion: Factions would be the Eastern and Western Roman Empires and the Huns. The objective for the Huns is to recieve a set amount of wealth from either Rome or Constantinople or a combination of both through tributes or plunder; or to take Gaul. The objective for either of the Roman factions is to kill Atilla or reduce the stregth of the Hunnic army to a percentage of its original strength.

The Justinian Reconquest: (OK, so it's just beyond the 500AD mark but would likely be possible with the factions in the second part). You start as either the Byzantine Empire, or the Ostrogoths and victory is achieved by taking and holding on to Rome and Ravenna (as the Byzantines)

There are also more simple 'duke it out' style wars such as The Peloponnesian War, The Greco-Persian Wars, The Punic Wars etc.

[Stan`]

I don't think there are any concepts for now. We still need the triggers that are planned for A17. That will make a lot of things possible, and we will be able to invite mappers

[Mythos_Ruler]

"Strategic" Campaigns, akin to Total War are more likely than "narrative" campaigns (like seen in Age of Mythology) simply because of the vast amount of work necessary to achieve a good result for a narrative campaign (storyline, writing, scripting, voice acting, etc.). Could have "mini" Strategic Campaigns (Peloponnesian War, Punic Wars, etc.) and a "Grand" Campaign, like you said. And also different victory conditions as you mention. The different victory conditions would allow us to add historical flavor while still not having to go through all the work of making proper narrative campaigns.

In the end, we could always give folks the ability to make their own narrative campaigns, and we probably will.

[Lion.Kanzen]

And more easy to adapt to modify. Than narrative.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[RoekeloosNL]

I hope Campaigns are planned very soon, Maybe add it like act 1, act 2, act 3, With every new release a new act or a updated act. And i think it will welcome more players to 0.A.D.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I hope Campaigns are planned very soon, Maybe add it like act 1, act 2, act 3, With every new release a new act or a updated act. And i think it will welcome more players to 0.A.D.

after beta.

[oshron]

i'd hope that strategic campaigns would still be based on historical events

you don't necessarily NEED to have voice-acting, especially for what would at this point be prototype campaigns. placeholder voices could also be used, taken from the design team.

[GunChleoc]

We would need text as an alternative to all voices in any case, because not all languages would be able to keep up.

[hhyloc]

My personal opinion on voice-acting is that we either do it good or don't do it at all. Hiring voice actors isn't cheap and place-holder voice won't work well. Not that I think among the team no one can record a good voice-over, but obviously we need a professional to provide an engaging experience while playing the campaign.

So for an early prototype strategic campaign, text-only is good enough for me.

Edited April 18, 2014 by hhyloc

[shieldwolf23]

I second hhyloc. For now, when we do the campaigns, we can have a simple messages [dialogues] with no voice over work. That way, the dialogues are already there, and voice over work could follow.

As to 0 AD winning over more players, yes, I do believe that player count would increase once we give them campaigns, and the ability to create their own scenarios/ edit campaign variables. I, myself, would be looking forward to it.

[Andrettin]

I, for one, don't think even triggers are strictly necessary to have campaigns, as long as different victory conditions can be set. All that is needed to make interesting campaigns is a briefing screen with interesting information (particularly the historical setup) about the scenario, along with the objectives.

[thamlett]

We need (at least in my humble opinion) to have different game modes before we start working on campaigns. For instance, adding stuff such as King of the Hill, Withstand Invasion, etc.

[SiahH]

I think that campaign should come first, people can make their own game modes in the game

[oshron]

We would need text as an alternative to all voices in any case, because not all languages would be able to keep up.

but of course! this would also help with any and all language barriers. people watch foreign shows in their original audio with subtitles all the time, and i don't think the individual units are going to be speaking any modern language as acknowledgement sounds, anyway

My personal opinion on voice-acting is that we either do it good or don't do it at all. Hiring voice actors isn't cheap and place-holder voice won't work well. Not that I think among the team no one can record a good voice-over, but obviously we need a professional to provide an engaging experience while playing the campaign.

So for an early prototype strategic campaign, text-only is good enough for me.

the key word being "placeholder". just temporary. as long as the voices are distinct, it would certainly be better than alot of other cheapo voice acting attempts (

). furthermore, you may well be able to find people willing to do voices for free. there's plenty of examples like this on the internet. off the top of my head, Smash King, a machinima series using Super Smash Bros. Brawl to tell a rather unconventional story, is chock full of not-for-pay voice actors. you could also consider looking into voice actors for various Abridged Series out there, such as Yu-Gi-Oh! and Dragonball Z Abridged, two of the more famous ones. other options would be Rooster Teeth (of Red vs. Blue, Achievement Hunter and, more recently, RWBY fame) or Channel Awesome/That Guy With The Glasses (which includes such internet celebrities as Doug Walker, aka The Nostalgia Critic), though i wouldn't put as much stock into those two not because i think they're bad or anything but because they're legitimate companies and may be less willing to contribute their talents in exchange for nothing, especially considering that they already have their own enormous undertakings in progress. Edited April 23, 2014 by oshron

[oshron]

an idea concerning campaigns occurred to me just earlier today. basically, there are six campaigns to begin with, one for each of the "original" civs from the earlier stages of the project. similar to Age of Kings, each of these campaigns would largely follow one historical figure (with others being present as supporting characters). even consider a Total War-style campaign, i think this could still work pretty well, just being less linear.

anyway, the civs would be based on a representative of the original six civs from before the Hellenes and Celts were split into more distinct factions and the likes of the Mauryans, etc., were added. there'd be a Hellenic campaign (possibly following Alexander the Great, the Macedonians in this case being the Greek representative for the campaigns), a Celtic campaign (i think the Gauls would fit the bill best here), a Persian campaign (maybe following Xerxes in the lead-up to Thermopylae?), a Roman campaign (Caesar would be the first choice, but it might be interesting to follow Scipio instead), a Carthaginian campaign (Hannibal, of course), and an Iberian campaign. alternatively, one of these could cover a Learning Campaign and the other five are more complete single-player campaigns.

Edited April 25, 2014 by oshron

[Flavius Aetius]

I can see a Strategic Campaign system like that.

This is my idea (it's sort of like the Age of Empires Gold Campaigns):

Several Campaigns, each in a different Area and different time period. You have to beat each "Campaign" to proceed to the next one.

1. Greco-Persian Wars (480 BC). Takes place in Greece, Lower Thrace, and West Anatolia. Factions are Hellenes, Thebes, Athens, Sparta, Persia

2. Punic Wars (270 BC): Takes place in Lower Italy, Sicily, Tunisia, and Lower Corsica/Sardinia Factions are Hellenes, Carthaginians, and Romans

3. Macedonian wars (140 BC): Takes place in Macedonia, Illyria, Moesia Factions are Hellenes, Macedonians, Celts, and Romans

4. Caesar's Gallic Conquest (50 BC): Takes Place in Gaul. Factions are Britons, Celts, Gauls, maybe Early Germanics, maybe Iberians, and Marian Romans

5. Dacian Wars (105): Takes place in Moesia, Upper Thrace, and Dacia. Factions are Imperial Romans, Early Germanics, Sarmatians, and Dacians

6. Marcomannic Wars (160): Takes Place in Pannonia and Noricum, and Western Dacia as well as lower Germania. Factions are Imperial Romans, Early Germanics, and Sarmatians.

5. Rise of the Sassanids (220): Takes Place in Mesopotamia, Armenia, East Syria/Anatolia, Babylonia, and maybe as far as Persia. Factions are Imperial Romans, Sarmatians, Parthians, and Sassanid Persians.

7. Gothic Wars (370 AD): Takes place in Macedonia, Thrace, and Moesia. Factions are Goths, Sarmatians, and Late Romans (East if there will be both halves)

8. Conquest of Britain (410 AD): Takes place in Britain. Factions are Picts, Romano-British, and Saxons

9. Invasion of Gaul (450 AD): Takes place in Gaul. Factions are Goths (2 of them), Late Romans (West), Huns, Sarmatians, Franks, Burgundians, Alemanni. Teams on this one (Romans Sarmatians and Goths vs. Huns, Goths, and Burgundians. Franks and Alemanni Neutral)

10. Roman Reconquest (560): Takes place in North Africa and Italy. Factions are East Romans, Goths, Vandals, and Lombards.

Alternatively, maybe this overall timeline campaign could be like a Tutorial, and then have campaigns focusing on each individual era mentioned in the Tutorial?

Edited April 25, 2014 by Flavius Aetius

[Sanguivorant]

A campaign kind of like Rise of Nation's Conquer the World campaigns would actually be interesting, if you guys are aware of them.

[Radagast.]

I agree with my forespeakers.

Caesar would be the first choice, but it might be interesting to follow Scipio instead

Which Scipio is whom thou want to follow? Is it Scipio Afrikanensis or the Scipio which was decisive against Hannibal's brother which ought to bring massive reinforcements from Carthage but was defeated mainly by Scipio's talent? (in a situation which could have rendered them hopeless)

I've thought of some examples, not sure what a good engaging victory condition would be for the defending factions in most cases though. Simply holding on to the territories you start the game with could be a bit boring.

We can discuss it. Though I doubt it's boring to hold territory. If you look at wars it was all about holding or losing advantageous territory. And if you lost one spot then you probably even had to abandon another which you maybe just recently reconquered.

A victory condition to hold out is what in my opinion we should think of too.

Thx for sparking this discussion.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Hephaestion

[oshron]

Which Scipio is whom thou want to follow? Is it Scipio Afrikanensis or the Scipio which was decisive against Hannibal's brother which ought to bring massive reinforcements from Carthage but was defeated mainly by Scipio's talent? (in a situation which could have rendered them hopeless)

the Scipio represented as a Republican Roman hero unit

[shieldwolf23]

We can discuss it. Though I doubt it's boring to hold territory. If you look at wars it was all about holding or losing advantageous territory. And if you lost one spot then you probably even had to abandon another which you maybe just recently reconquered.

A victory condition to hold out is what in my opinion we should think of too.

I agree. Historically, that is the main focus of wars between Empires and ancients - territories, and the rare/ valuable resources that those territories contain. Since 0 AD is geared on realism, we should take that into account.