Dear Sir,
this says a lot and nothing. Though historical battles will be implemented it doesnt mean that there will be an explicit campaign mode, but you may have other sources
Looking forward to serve under your command !
Dear Sir,
this says a lot and nothing. Though historical battles will be implemented it doesnt mean that there will be an explicit campaign mode, but you may have other sources
Looking forward to serve under your command !
" ...it appears the Virginia Military Institute will be heard from today."
- Iced EarthWith virtue as our beacon. Our cause is charged as treason, Battle worn and starving. Through the hell of war we'll keep marching. The birth of our new nation
I'm hoping they're looking to make it as in depth as i've described, it really would suit a Game like this. Are the Devs taking on community feedback or are such modes nailed down internally in terms of their features?
http://wiki.tripwireinteractive.com/...layer_Campaign
http://wiki.tripwireinteractive.com/...er_CampMap.pngMultiplayer Campaign Mode is an all new paradigm in multiplayer FPS games – more than just a game type, it ties the game types and individual matches together into a campaign that can last hours. This gives the multiplayer game more depth than ever before – individual matches now matter for the overall victory or loss in the MP campaign. Both sides battle it out to control territories on a large scale battle map, voting on which territories to attack, whether to attempt to take more territory, or to defend and try to grind down the enemies resources. We like to say it is like a “meta” game of Risk. This mode was released with both a Stalingrad and Pacific theater campaign.
That description really over-sells what it is in RO2, what usually ends up happening is the Team that's choosing whether to defend or Attack will, 8 times out of 10, attack and stuff like Manpower and choosing whether to Attack or Defend really doesn't make all that much of a difference. It just winds up being a disjointed series of normal maps played one after the other until one team runs out of Manpower or one Team takes all the territories.
For instance, it'd be good if a team choosing to defend actually got some kind of defensive bonus, like in WOR if you chose to defend your commander would get better defensive capabilities (Like the ability to place defensive objects in Maps like anti cavalry stakes and fortifications, influencing the flow of Battle) and stuff like having more Canister Shot available to Cannons and, you know, actually having to defend.
My idea for this would be ::
At the start of the round you have a warm up period of say 2 Minutes where everyone is waiting in the Spawn queue, the Commanders of both sides position units and the defending Commander, like said above, can position defensive structures within a certain radius of where his team will spawn. An RNG factor effecting Weather would also compliment this system very well (Rain/fog effecting visibility) and possibly giving Commanders the ability to choose when to attack (light/dark dynamic effecting Battles).
It could genuinely be something special if you took the good aspects from the RO2 Campaign and turned it into what it was actually supposed to be in that Game, maybe even more.
Last edited by R21; 01-05-2016 at 06:41 AM.
It would be kinda neat if there was something like the dynamic campaign in War Thunder, where you captur one region, then you have the oppurtunity to advance on the next.
Signed:
Patrick Henry
people in companies should be able to choose the side they wish to be on versus those that are not in companies. I hate that I have to choose playing for the union, when my company is all on the CSA.
Sorry, but that seems like a really bad way to design a game. We're not refighting the Civil War, and we're not bound to one side or the other just because we're signed up on a particular company.
Also, that would create a massive split in the community between those who want to hop on and play casually and those who want to fight with a unit.
Best,
Dman979
I Agree
I agree as well
Well I Dont like playing on the union side, my preference is the CSA side, and no its not refighting a civil war, BUT yet this game is just that, or it would not have been developed in the first place. When 90% of my team mates are on the CSA, I dont wish to play against them, not to mention I want to have fun with them. I enjoy talking with them, strategy of what to do as a Team effort. The union side always seem so disorganized, and fight as individuals, the only map they seem to always win is harpers ferry crossing, where its not to hard to fight as individuals and win. If I wanted to choose the union side I would have looked for a union company to join in. I hate that im forced to wait, thats what I must do, to get in with my team mates on the CSA, hoping someone else will choose the union side, or I have to come back later to the game. its also about camaraderie of team mates, learning to fight with along side each other, not against each other................ thus preference of Team companies over individuals, or there would never have been Team companies in the first place. and to your massive split, its in the game heading of War of Rights, it shows the numbers of who joined what side, in the heading, and in the company tool, for volunteering and joining a team based company, we drill as a company, so it would be nice to fight as a company and those individuals can be bumped to the other side, i mean after all there not in a company so as an individual, it dosent matter what side they fight on. when Cody is on the union side they seem to get organized, or people of his caliber. There are times when The 7th TN all goes union. for we wish to fight as a TEAM not split. so companies should be able to fight as a team, we drill as one. and team companies should have preference over individuals. Im sure when Individuals join a Team Company, they too will not want to fight against the team they joined.