To vote on the idea, please sign in with your personal or social account (Facebook or Google).
To watch the idea, please sign in with your personal or social account (Facebook or Google).
This is a copy of the suggestion I put on Steam earlier, so I'm going to include the short list of comments here as well.
The campaign and adventure modes are a wee bit of a mess, yet are the primary way the player would put his designs to use. Further, the gameplay has essentially two approaches that are seemingly at war with each other. The player is initially plopped down into the game in a first person perspective and mode. However, the campaign is obviously trying to be a unique approach to an RTS.
First, ditch adventure mode as it presently exists. Replace it with a new mode (also called adventure mode) where the player possibly chooses one of his vehicles to spawn in. Ditch the whole heartstone thing. The adventure mode has the player travel across Neter, meeting other ships. Some are friendly, others...less so. Friendly or neutral NPC ships would offer missions with resource and XP rewards. This gives players the opportunity to experience Neter from the perspective of the lone adventurer. The avatar would be present and the player could die, just not from leaving his ship. If your own ship gets busted, no problem. Jump on another ship, go to its command chair, beat up the opposing Rambot, take his ship. As long as you don't die, you can keep going.
For the campaign mode, have a look at the Warhammer 40k Dawn of War game that came out years ago. One of the expansions had the player slowly tackle regions on a turn-based map. The player then entered a RTS scenario when moving into one of those regions. I think that would be a fantastic approach to the campaign mode. It has a more strategic feel to it. Once in said map, there would be no player avatar. The player could hop into a given vehicle to take more direct command, but would be generally more reliant on the AI and on directing the battle as a whole. Honestly, it wouldn't really even change the story, just how the campaign is approached.
For those who want classic adventure mode, an option could exist to create something called survival mode, where the heartstone thing is still there. Honestly, that's too easy to do.
By the way, I would be happy to do some mock-ups if you're willing to entertain any of the thoughts above.
fairchild.lodge has From The Depths 14 hours ago
I'm not so sure about the campaign changes you were talking abut (but thats mainly because i dont play warhammer 40k), but the others, i'm all for
bricox01 has From The Depths 11 hours ago
Ah. I’ll go into more detail then. As far as the campaign would go, you’d have a map of Neter, divided into regions.
Each region would grant a certain amount of resource per strategic map turn. The player and each AI faction gets one or two actions per turn. An action may mean building or adding to a force (a force being a piece on the strategic map board), moving a force, or attacking an enemy force. Other actions, such as diplomacy, spying, or other shenanigans could be added later.
A force can only be of a certain maximum size. Your force could include a fortress, airships, boats, submarines, or any mix. The easiest way to class objects would be based on volume. Give a point value to each volume range. That way, you limit how many behemoths can be in a given force. A force also has a material resource cost to maintain it. If the cost is not paid, the force cannot act during a given strategic map turn. It also cannot defend itself and is automatically defeated if attacked. Make your forces sustainable! As an option, a force could also be toggled to not receive resources, going dormant. This allows the player better control over income versus maintenance.
Each region a faction controls (the player is one such faction) gives that faction a certain amount of material resource at the beginning of each strategic turn. For sanity’s sake, I would suggest that you express said income in units of 1K. You would have both passive and active income from a region you control. A passive income would be constant and small, say around 1-3K per turn. Active income is much higher, at around 10K per turn, but requires a fortress be present. Each faction’s home region is generally double to triple the income of another region. A region may also have modifiers that lower passive income, but dramatically increase active income. A region might also give a special resource that allows the player to make additional actions in a given turn.
Yes, you could stack multiple forces on a single region. Defensively, it means the attacker must use multiple strategic actions to repeatedly attack that region. It could take a few turns to defeat a stack!
Assuming that you are meeting the resource costs of your force, entering into combat with a force means that each member of that force enters at 100% health, with all resource containers full. During combat, if you lose a member of your force, it can either be recovered and repaired for a price, or abandoned. Further, enemy units that did not scuttle themselves could also be recovered and repaired for a price, thus being added to your force.
The action of combat plays out in real time, much as an RTS should. Everything else happens at a turn-based pace.
This also allows Neter to effectively be far larger as the turn-based map doesn’t load the entire world in the same way. Each region represents its own map (as maps currently function now). A short loading screen puts you into the action. Each region could be its own large map. It gives long-ranged weapons more agency and makes concepts such as spotting planes more valuable. Carriers take on a whole new dimension of mean.
Inland regions could also allow for forces consisting mainly of static defences mixed with air and land units. Such a force cannot move, but has an exceedingly low maintenance cost to compensate for that deficiency. Further, it forces a player to consider adding air and ground units to his catalogue as a fully inland region cannot be attacked by a water force.
That’s the idea in a nutshell. Any more questions, just ask. I’m also happy to meet up in discord or something to discuss further.
fairchild.lodge has From The Depths 4 hours ago
oh, that actually sounds like it would be really nice
bricox01 has From The Depths 12 minutes ago
I think this approach to a campaign in FtD would be a better fit than the current one. It would be a good mix of turn-based and RTS while showing off just how strategic FtD can be.
One of the early issues I had with FtD was that I saw it as being more like Starmade due to the avatar. That will give a lot of people the impression that it is more action and less strategic. The best way to give the impression that it is more RTS than wierd FPS: Ditch the avatar in most modes.
Sorry for the wall of text, but I wanted to include everything to this point.