Just an idea.

[Willmore]

I was thinking of something, and here's something I came up with - no, or very few strategy games have a connecting storyline. And I'm sure no empire-building game, such as IG has one.


Now, I'm not saying to put a story inside the main game. What I'm thinking is creating a Scenario-based Campaign. This campaign will focus on say a young officer, who rises through ranks (or doesn't) throughout the Napoleonic wars, this could be a great way of integrating historical battles. They guy could be in a British officer, who fights in Spain, France, Waterloo, etc. Maybe have a choice between cavalry officer, infantry, or even artillery - hey someone has to follow in Napoleon's footsteps.

Now, at the start - the officer has to follow specific orders, and has a small detachment to command (perhaps make them small battles, where he commands all forces, like in an independant raid) Between scenarios, we are updated to the political situation, and the characters personal life. Connecting it to the battles in some ways.


In the advanced game, perhaps the player ccould rise to rule a kingdom (Ney) and then influence the european politics.
All this with varying scenarios, objectives and human factors.




Or I just might be nuts, you never know.

[haradrim]

thats a good idea it would connect gamers more to their men and instead of sending sprites on a glory charge they would think twice before doing that if they knew it was your character(s) getting mowed down. It would probably prevent more desktop generals from being meat grinders too. Another idea as well is to name all the regiments, throughout the game they would gain experience become more efficient and become a feared fighting force(or not)and be able to choose which regiments you want lead the invasion of prussia for example. I dont know if pyro has already implemented that idea but i think that would be fun as well.

or maybe i should accompany willmore to the funny farm

[Angel SNR [HG]]

I always thought a game like this would especially cool, though I pictured it as more of MMORPG. Taske the basis of your idea and morph it into everyone playing a soldier who has to try and rise through the ranks until they can try and found their own regiment...

[Willmore]

I agree, I've had an idea like this for some time as well. Though mine too was different as well - mine was more of an RPG type of game - you being the officer.

[haradrim]

Hey i just had a new idea.
how about this, you can create a character at the beggining of the game(lets call him john doe) and choose a campaign to play. this would not be an rts you would simply control one man throughout the campaign. to fight it would be in a third person or commandoes(im not sure what that view is called) view. eventually you rise through the ranks from to officer where you control a group of men and so on and so forth until you retire once you reach the rank of general(unless they want multiple general types which is sort of pointless IMO). you could choose from different units you could be e.g. dragoon, sailor, light infantry(being a line infantryman would probably get repetitive unless your a masachist). as salary is collected and booty is found you can upgrade to better weapons and/or cool little trinkets to give your character more customized. well thats it unless you guys want more things the game will feature.

adios amigos, ta ta for now

[@m]

That sounds more like an rpg kind of game, being based on one character that you follow through.

[haradrim]

yea i know but it seemed like a good idea and i didnt know where else to put something like that.

haradrim out

[CastusPlebian]

It sounds a bit like Call of Duty mixed with an RPG. In call of duty, you follow the footsteps of certain soldiers during the war. Sounds almost too much like it.

Or, are you talking about Age of Empires 2 Style. Where the campaigns had you in the footsteps of certain great generals such as Joan of Arc, or Saladin

[haradrim]

well it sounded to in my mind...i thought it was a good idea but its okay if you dont like it(if nobody said stuff like "that game sounds horrible" we would have a lot more crappy games coming out then their are now). thank you for your criticism castus. now to attempt to answer your question. i am actually not really sure how it would work out. i had envisioned as being a third person view. but unlike call of duty most combat would end up having hand-to-hand combat since reloading would take so long. i had not thought of following generals in their campaigns(though that would be interesting to try). lastly a napoleanic era call of duty like rpg sounds original to me. I personally have not played call of duty i only know what i have heard from friends and reviews so my facts about how the game functions may be a little awry. o well geniuses are never appreciated in their own times. i hope i answered your question. please dont hesitate to critique this idea again. maybe if it gets refined enough some developer will pick it up...maybe.

over and out

[uber_panzer]

that is a great idea.BUT THE DEVS WOULD HAVE TO GET IT NEAR PERFECT ATLEAST. SO THE PLAYER WOULD NOT FEEL LIKE HE HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE SITUATIONS BUT NOT HAVE TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE SITUATION AT THE SAME TIME.it is a great idea but only if accomplished in near perfect order

[CastusPlebian]

First of all, I would like to say, a Napoleonic Era shooter would never come to pass =p
The action would not fast paced enough for most people. In a strategy game, the firing rate can be increased without damaging gameplay. In a call of duty sort of shooter, notice most of the guns fire quite quickly enabling you to go through the mission. In the napoleonic era, you could not storm something alone because your musket took 50 seconds to reload(if you were good).
And most people would not a the whole game a (shooter) to be hand to hand combat =p
Also hand to hand combat was not used constantly. It was used alot, but mostly they had the old world rank style. 3 ranks, first fires, while reloading, 2nd fires,then third. By then the first rank has reloaded and can put up a continuous volley. The problem was, flanking, and the enemy charging from different areas, cavalry, and later airplanes basically got rid of the straight line combat style, as planes could just strafe them.

[haradrim]

I know its a long shot but i thought that if done correctly it would be a refreshing change from all these WWII themed games.

few questions is call of duty in first or third person? and when were breech loading firearms introduced?

How about being a dragoon, you could weild a sword and/or a carbine.

[Arctic_Wolf]

Call of Duty, CoD, is first person. You view the action from the eyes of your character, not from a camera floating behind them. On some games you can switch between views, i.e Morrowind.

[LordUxbridge]

Originally posted by CastusPlebian
...In the napoleonic era, you could not storm something alone because your musket took 50 seconds to reload(if you were good).
And most people would not a the whole game a (shooter) to be hand to hand combat =p
Also hand to hand combat was not used constantly. It was used alot, but mostly they had the old world rank style....

Just to point out that most well trained infantry could get off three rounds per minute, which is one every 20 seconds, not 50. Also, hand to hand combat was not even used that much during the Napoleonic period, in fact it was an exception to the rule when infantry came to cross bayonets: many contemporaries claimed they hand never actually been in a melee. One must remember that during the period, a battalion, after firing several volleys would advance with bayonets levelled at a slow pace, persuading the enemy to urgently seek an appointment elsewhere. It usually had the desired effect and the enemy unit would break. Therefore hand to hand combat was actually exceptionally rare.