Well TM, for us 'Medieval Buffs'; It's OUR tunr!

Anything relating to our company that doesn't fit elsewhere
clobberella
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:27 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada eh

Postby clobberella » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:23 pm

Phil Walker wrote:I know what you are saying. However for a new player to even be allowed to join a game in progress, makes for problems. For instance should a occuring game have it where EVERY territory/region is already occupied by one of the given number playing, WHERE would they start? The only way possible if to have a rebellion within a given region and what would happen if a "rebel" army appears? It would be avoided by keeping the prominent army near or within range to conquer the opposition before they could assemble. If playing a full-blown campaign instead of a scenario as per my earlier overview when discussing this for both SP and MP it would be possible, but scenarios where you are working within only ONE country would be tight at least if not impossible. Addig a player at a later time would only be possible in a full-blown campagn in this regard. Thus the new player would take over a neutral/unoccupid territory.

Sincerely,
Phil

Well for starters, I'm thinking that once contact is made, or a tourney is agreed-upon, then those cities involved become invisible and that locks that sub-game to others. There would be a limit to how many cities can physically fit on the world map and some locations are likely to be more popular than others. Very much a problem. Perhaps different 'play-rooms' to chose from at the server end, with a limit on how many can play and where?
How about having to become King in the SP mode to become eligible for the world map or certain 'play-rooms'? Restrictive for some, but... just an idea to bounce off everyone.
I like your idea of a rebel army appearing Phil, maybe newcomers can fight for an unoccupied area?
I can't really comment on the Lords game but working in territorial ownership would be a challenge for MP, how many conquered cities can one keep an eye on at once?!

Fishrob
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Postby Fishrob » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:10 pm

I Guess If You Were King Then You Must Be At The Top So You Could Have A Leadership Abillity,but The Course Of The Game Would Me That You Had To Do The Sp Games To Get To A King

Fish

Phil Walker
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ - USA

Yes and No...

Postby Phil Walker » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:14 am

Well, to HAVE to have attained a position to play in any aspect in itself should be restrictive and makes for a less opportunistic outcome. Many will only desire to play one or the other, save for Tutorials I have found, so the purpose is somewhat self-defeating, IMHO.

As to the world map, number of cities depend on how many regions each country has. Being as you don't know Lords 3, I'll clarify. In Lords 3, you had one estate land and the rest common lands. I would like to see two estates instead of just one. A "sub'" estate if you will. However, let me go on. Depending on the size of a region, I'll take Ireland as an example. The largest region had 8 "plots" to build upon. You had to have at least one farm to feed your army and people. Those were run by "serfs". Normally one of the estates would be a castle as that is the main property unless you think more for research and/or development. Then a city would fit. Towns were on common land where estates were cities and the like with my other notations. To keep Christianity up or improve you had to have at least one church/cathedral. So, that takes 4 out of the 8 right there. The only true necessity being farms and the rest to improve upon things. The bigger the army the more food you needed though, so sometime two farms were needed. BTW; farms are farming communities not just a single farm in my game. So, to increase the size of your army most of the remaining would be fiefs all under the jurisdiction of the castle, and when you acquire more territories the main castle overall. You had knights in your queue and each knight had certain types of troops and in some cases siege weapons. Yet one did not know these until assigning them to a castle or fief. But this is the just biggest land plot-wise. One region only had 3 plots, so that makes for a challenge in itself. Not a good plot to start with, but one once obtained would give some benefits. So, depending on if you choose Utopia game where you trade and make treaties/alliances or combat where you take over each territory, or combining the two, which I won't go into the slight modifications to adapt the two, it becomes a balancing act to be the one to either conquer or have good relationships with all the other regions. Ireland only had 5 regions by the way, so in that small country you are limited. When you "own" a region, you own all of it. So, this should give you an idea of what I meant.

As to the rebel army, the question is WHERE they pop-up and if an AI player, then they can within your region. If a player it should be restricted to unoccupied regions as I suggested.

The thing is I don't want people to have to achieve anything to be able to play any aspect of the game. You have your choices of the 3 ways to play, then you have scenarios, battle simulations (short combat only), or the total campaign. None should reflect on the other in any way, save in SP, if you want to only do each scenario once and use it to build up a rank, then that would be acceptable. But what happens when a creator puts together a new user-created scenario? I think you see my pont. Campaigns by my own description and design would take a player who can play 8 hours a day 7 days a week a full month to complete even on the easiest of settings. That is also something else to think about, difficulty levels. That would be a better route to restrict who plays against eachother and who will "tangle" with the more experienced players. Some nay never play the game on the higher difficulties and some will attempt them even before "messing" with the lower levels once they comprehend the workings of the game. I truly thin this is a better route to restrict any type of play and especially tournaments. Like in the other GameSpy games I listed, if you click on the game you can such information of what they are playing and at what difficulty. This alone would let the player decide what the want to embark upon. BTW; with my scoring included much like in Emperor, the higher the difficulty the higher the score. So, I think this would cover all aspects without going into other sub-deviations.

Good ideas all, but we just again have a different outlook, and these debates will give the developers something to chew on WHEN they decide to undertake upon this project, and let's hope it's next or ASAP.


Sincerely,
PHil

PS: GEEZ! I only thought my long and detailed explanations were all taken care of :D :rolleyes: :eek: :cool: !!!



clobberella
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:27 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada eh

Postby clobberella » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:56 am

Further to my last post: I was thinking in terms of getting to put your finished SP 'city' online to pit yourself against others' finished 'cities', much like Court Jester wanted. As an option for a quick MP battle RTS style. Not so much having all MP so exclusive. Just thinking of having 3 MP options, a slightly different game for each type of player: Quick battle, King's Quick battle (the exclusive one), and Campaign (long term commitment as discussed before).
In the terms Phil uses above: For the "King's Quick battle": As the winner (you become ruler) of all plots in the region, you become eligible to see how your kingdom ('city') stacks up online vs others' efforts.
The closest system to Lords 3 I've played, would be Rise of Nations i guess, in the way each 'country' was made up of conquerable states/provinces.
Anyway wouldn't getting to the King's game constitute bragging rights? At least it would ensure no total newbs get there before they have an idea of what they're doing! LOL! :D Could even have a score board with battles won/lost with that 'city/kingdom'.
Also was thinking the eligible city/kingdom would be 'locked' at time of winning the SP. So not too much tweaking can be done w/o starting a whole new city/kingdom. I am aiming to avoid some unfairness, of eg. someone improving their city when weaknesses become apparent online.
Well those are my thoughts for now... :)

clobberella
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:27 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada eh

Yes and no Fish...

Postby clobberella » Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:41 am

Fishrob wrote:There could be several options availble,the best feat would be to construct your castle,where you race your opponent to collect resources to build it of course once there your troops would be trained then to attack the otherside and take your engineeras to build tunnels to destroy the castle and your troops to kill the constructers

The problem I see with this idea is where's the CB? This could be the form the 'quick battle' might take however. :D

Phil Walker
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ - USA

clobberella:

Postby Phil Walker » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:35 pm

Seems I need to give a "gentle" reminder here. Fish does have a good idea in a way, although I'm not one for underground and destroying what COULD be used as a stronghold in another location. That being you missed what I said LONG ago as to what this game will have.

It will have 3 basic aspecst; CB-only, RTS-only, AND a combination of both. We've been highlighting the combination mode only at this time. So, you missed that there WILL be an RTS-only aspect in both SP and MP modes to where the ONLY true goal will be to take over the regions/countries by conquest and completely. With the CB-only aspect it will be to develop a Utopia within a country or all of Europe. So, while Fish's idea is for RTS-only it IS a good idea none the less.

Lords of the Realm games WERE RTS/TBS game with NO CB aspects to begin with. I only adapted the CB to get the optimum of having the combination mode which no game has as of yet (at least in the Medieval setting) AND to offer more of a market to suit all players. Remember, ALL ideas are welcome not JUST those who are into CBing but other aspects as well as Lords was not designed this way, but I want to improve upon it.


Sincerely,
Phil



clobberella
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:27 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada eh

Postby clobberella » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:49 pm

I was thinking of when you said you wanted about 50-50 RTS to CB. Also mines (not the gunpowder type) were used in the middle ages as a popular method to breach castle walls during seiges.
Last edited by clobberella on Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fishrob
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Postby Fishrob » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:04 pm

The idea i was putting across would just be in the multiplayer,i suppose it could used in sp as a scenario,its of course RTS.
Istill want some history involement to make it a bit educational,it mustn't become to complicated either else people wont bother

Phil Walker
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ - USA

Yes!

Postby Phil Walker » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:11 pm

For the combination mode that IS what I want. However, not everybody will do a RTS at all, like many here for instance. So, that's why I went to the three options as I noted in my last reply. There are also those who won't have anything to do with CB aspects, so ALL are to be considered if we want this game to have something for everybody.

Sincerely,
Phil


Last edited by Phil Walker on Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

clobberella
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:27 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada eh

Postby clobberella » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:29 pm

No big deal Phil,
I've bought many games where I've never touched the MP (no internet at the time). If there is something for everyone, then by definition everyone won't like every play option avaliable. It should be sold with the caveat that each mode gives a different play experience.

[text enlarged for the visually impaired]

Fishrob
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Postby Fishrob » Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:49 pm

IM only playing some single player games now,i usualy play multiplayer,i dont think i have ever done one single player in empire earth 1 or 2

Fishrob
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Postby Fishrob » Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:54 pm

What we need is a new ground breaking game that will be as popular as the age of empire franchise,something for all,kinda like rise and fall,where as you can play both rts and fps together,im not so sure if i like the tb games like civ 4 even though they are popular(its just a preferance)i think a CB,RTS AND FPS(MULTIPLAYER OPTION)would be great

Fish

Phil Walker
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ - USA

Yes!

Postby Phil Walker » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:16 pm

Right Fish! Other games like Civ. 4 that are TBS have their place and all the others you mentioned. You know what my goal is. To make the greatest Medieval game ever with something for everybody. For those who like CB, those who like RTS, and those who like a combination of both (which has yet to be done). Not just that, but the three applications for both SP and MP modes as well and with difficulites to suit the newest to the most experienced players. As I've been saying about this dream game of mine all along, "Something for EVERYBODY"!!!


Sincerely,
Phil



Fishrob
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Postby Fishrob » Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:34 am

well said that man

Phil Walker
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ - USA

Notes...

Postby Phil Walker » Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:21 pm

Been a bit busy to browse the Titled Mill lately, so just saw Fish's reply the other day, but only now had time to respond. Thanks much Fish :cool: !!! Let's just pray it happens. Another reason for the reply is to let it be known what my desire is as I've now seen much input, but my goal seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. Time for more and in MEDIEVAL!!! :D :p :D

Sincerely,
Phil



Kiya
Posts: 3235
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 8:12 pm

Postby Kiya » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:42 pm

While you are waiting for TM to do a medieval game, Medieval 2 Total War is released next week. I was looking at some screenshots, wow, quite impressive battle field scenes. :p But not my game though. :D

chazsi
Posts: 1256
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Beaumont, TX

Postby chazsi » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:46 pm

Agreed Kiya. I'm not into the "war" thing anymore.

But I would absolutely LOVE a TM medieval theme. More along the lines of CotN than C4. :D

Just my preference.... ;)

bexgames
Posts: 1458
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: riverside, california

Postby bexgames » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:05 am

while I'm still rooting for a mesoamerican theme, I have to admit, IF they make it along the lines of COTN, Medieval would be cool. :cool:

Phil Walker
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ - USA

Missed the Openers?!

Postby Phil Walker » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:16 am

Man, seems people only see the newest posts and have either not read or forgotten the rest. Think you who have just posted (save Kiya as she is aware and has seen much of this before), need to refresh what my goal is. Gmae is a 3 facet game. CB-only, RTS-only, AND a combintation of both but favoring the RTS. Thus something for ALL and you choose what to do if not all of them. Think you best all go back and read from the beginning and you'll see what my goal and resson for this thread was then. MarkDuffy and I agree in principle what this thread has in it. We want more CBing in our RTS games, and more RTSing in our CB games. This will allow for both and you choose your options but more than that. So, I think it best you reread this thread from the beginning and you'll see then. This game if done WILL be my "dream game" as I love Medieval most of all and I'm more into combat than most of the straight CB gamers are.

Also Kiya, I'm well aware of Medieval 2 - Total War and once released it IS taking priority for me to getting C4 right now. Chirstma is coming though, so I wont' buy as I do ussually get at least one if not more PC games as gifts then. Thanks for bringing it to the atteniton of others though! I do keep track of new Medieval games even more than I am here. ;) :p :D


Sincerely,
Phil



tobing
Posts: 950
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Bruchsal/Germany
Contact:

Postby tobing » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:49 am

Settlers 6 will appear next year. Apart from the military part, it could well be the game you're looking for...

http://www.ubi.com/DE/Downloads/Info.aspx?dlId=1881

Just look into the video, there's no dedicated official website yet. But the printed magazines have long featured articles about this upcoming game quite regularly, which on the one hand rises expectations, but on the other hand makes excellent marketing!


Return to “The Tilted Mill”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest