What would make a WW2 RTS work? - Age of Empires III Heaven Forum

Topic Subject: What would make a WW2 RTS work?

« Previous Page 1 2 3 Next Page »

NotInvolved
Skirmisher

posted 08-28-09 08:33 AM EDT (US)

I'm thinking about typing up an idea for a WW2 game here. I know it's been done countless times, but in my opinion, none of them have been brilliant.

So does anyone have any ideas about how we could make a WW2-themed game work?

Here are some of mine:

1. WW2 period only. Adding WW1 (let alone the Cold War and modern times) means that there would be too many civilizations who didn't exist for some of the game. For example, a WW1 game wouldn't work without Austria-Hungary - but if the game carried on into WW2, they shouldn't even exist.

Also, if you're doing the 20th-Century, the technology changes too much to fit the whole century into one game.

2. No aging up. It simply wouldn't be worth doing. Each age would last just over a year, maximum. Advancing could only work by researching technologies.

3. Serious changes to the town-building dynamic. In WW2, the armies didn't build little villages and farm for their food. Sometimes they lived with local people, sometimes they had supplies delivered.

However, I haven't been able to think of any ideas for this. What can we do about resource-gathering & building towns?

4. Better relationships between civs. The Axis are always one team, and the Allies are always the other. However, since every civ can choose to be either Allied or Axis, it is possible to make any team-combination.

So please post your ideas. They would be a big help.

CIVS INFO SO FAR:

The 12 civs I have are:

The UK, the US, the USSR, Australia, France, China, Germany, Japan, Italy and Finland.

Each civ's national anthem will play during the game. They are:
*UK - God Save the Queen
*US - The Star-Spangled Banner
*USSR - The Internationale
*Australia - Advance Australia Fair / Song of Australia / Waltzing Matilda (Whichever you prefer. All were "unofficial anthems" at the time - the official anthem was God Save the Queen. Advance Australia Fair is the current National Anthem.)
*France - La Marseillaise
*China - National Anthem of the Republic of China (It was an unofficial anthem at the time, but there was no official anthem that I know of.)
*Germany - Deutschland �ber Alles
*Japan - Kimi ga Yo
*Italy - Marcia Reale
*Finland - Mamme

Each civ will have an Allied and an Axis leader, who will grant different bonuses. So far the leaders are:

ALLIES
USA: Franklin D. Roosevelt
UK: Winston Churchill
USSR: Joseph Stalin
Australia: John Curtin
France: Charles de Gaulle
China: Chiang Kai-shek
Germany: Henning von Tresckow
Japan:
Italy: Vittorio Emanuele III
Finland: Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

AXIS
USA:
UK:
USSR:
Australia:
France: Philippe P�tain
China: Zhang Jinghui
Germany: Adolph Hitler
Japan: Hirohito
Italy: Benito Mussolini
Finland: Risto Ryti

MY VARIOUS THREADS IN THE FUTURE ES GAMES FORUM
The Māori - Sand - The new USA - Age of Epics - Gang Wars - The Future ES Games story! - Jaguar6's Age of Rebirth - Charting the Globe - The Old West - WWII (setup)

[This message has been edited by NotInvolved (edited 09-04-2009 @ 11:33 AM).]

Author

Replies:

prowlers own
Skirmisher

posted 08-28-09 10:25 AM EDT (US) 1 / 58

Eastern front = Russia vs Germany.
What you called the eastern front should be pacific front.

GR account: Colonel Corrupt [�eg��n]

prowlers own,
and you call yourself a human???
Just another liberal "name caller" cause you HAVE NO FACTS

NotInvolved
Skirmisher

posted 08-28-09 11:03 AM EDT (US) 2 / 58

I know about the fronts, but because I'm having one front in the Asia-Pacific area, and one for the rest of the war, I've had to give them the wrong names.

I could call it the Pacific Front, but what would I call the other front?

prowlers own
Skirmisher

posted 08-28-09 11:24 AM EDT (US) 3 / 58

mediterranean front (brits and americans vs italy and germany)
western european (brits and americans vs germans)
eastfront (russian vs germans)
pacific front (american vs japanese)
southeast asian front (american and brits and dutch vs japanese and allies)

GR account: Colonel Corrupt [�eg��n]

prowlers own,
and you call yourself a human???
Just another liberal "name caller" cause you HAVE NO FACTS

NotInvolved
Skirmisher

posted 08-28-09 11:31 AM EDT (US) 4 / 58

I know the fronts, but I already said that I don't want to do a separate game type for each front.

There's 2 game types:
Asia & the Pacific
UK, US, Australia, China, Japan, Thailand

Europe, Russia, the Middle East and North Africa
UK, US, USSR, France, Germany, Italy

What do you think I should call them?

prowlers own
Skirmisher

posted 08-28-09 02:46 PM EDT (US) 5 / 58

Leave out middle-eastern front and change north african to mediteranean (allied landings on crete and sicily and allied invasion of italy (perhaps the balkan too but im not sure)

GR account: Colonel Corrupt [�eg��n]

prowlers own,
and you call yourself a human???
Just another liberal "name caller" cause you HAVE NO FACTS

Trismagistos
Skirmisher

posted 08-28-09 04:44 PM EDT (US) 6 / 58

Making Yossarian and his buddies from his crazy base would be a great way of making a WWII game good, in my opinion.

...Just kidding.
Buy it is a cool book.

As for the town mechanic, all you need to do is rename it "the camp mechanic". Tents are houses, the garage is the siege workshop, the drill yard is the barracks, the kitchen supplies food and the Budget resource replaces Coin.

MatthewII
Skirmisher

posted 08-28-09 10:49 PM EDT (US) 7 / 58

Drop the idea of Fronts altogether, trying to make them realistic will be too confusing, while trying to simplify them will just be too unrealistic (the Russians no more fought in North Africa than in the Pacific), and besides, well-constructed campaigns will do better than such limitations.

Resource gathering could be done part by triggers, and part by fixed buildings (mines, foundries, etc.)

ImperialLobster
Skirmisher

posted 08-30-09 03:58 AM EDT (US) 8 / 58

you dont need to worry about if civs exist- an RTS game is the changing of history from the start- the Aztecs never fought the Dutch in Ceylon did they...

Having 2 main teams will have terrible problems- the same civ combo against a different combo will be impossible to balance.

KEEP
CALM
AND
CARRY
ON
≤≤≤≤≤See my YouTube channel for some crazy pointless crap!≥≥≥≥≥

NotInvolved
Skirmisher

posted 08-30-09 02:42 PM EDT (US) 9 / 58

I'm sorry, but I still can't see the towns and resources working. Some other ideas I've had are:

1. You simply get occasional shipments of resources. That would mean you could cut your opponents supply lines, and stop them getting resources. (I don't really like that idea, though. I doubt that it would work.)

2. Your soldiers can gather resources (no villagers). I like this idea because it would be fairly realistic on wilderness maps, and it would mean you didn't need farmers accompanying your army everywhere.

3. Buildings give you resources. This could be quite good. Helipads, docks, kitchens, motor pools, etc. could be used to generate resources.

4. All of the above. Probably the best way of doing it. Every now and then, choppers, jeeps, boats, planes, or trucks would bring you supplies. Your infantry would be the main resource-gatherers, and buildings would generate a little extra.

Quoted from MatthewII:
Trying to simplify them [the fronts] will just be too unrealistic

Having no fronts would make it even more unrealistic. At least this way we can keep the civs in half-realistic settings.

Without the fronts, anybody could play anywhere. The Japanese could play the Chinese in France. At least this way we keep things slightly more accurate. I know it's not perfect, but it does have a few advantages. (All kinds of things could change in each front, to help with the historical accuracy - The Brits and Americans could have different features in each front, for example.)

Quoted from ImperialLobster:
Having 2 main teams will have terrible problems- the same civ combo against a different combo will be impossible to balance.

That's a very good point. Do you think we should simply remove the teams? Or do you think there's a way around the problem?

[This message has been edited by NotInvolved (edited 09-02-2009 @ 12:34 PM).]

MatthewII
Skirmisher

posted 08-30-09 07:02 PM EDT (US) 10 / 58

Having no fronts would make it even more unrealistic. At least this way we can keep the civs in half-realistic settings.

Without the fronts, anybody could play anywhere. The Japanese could play the Chinese in France. At least this way we keep things slightly more accurate. I know it's not perfect, but it does have a few advantages. (All kinds of things could change in each front, to help with the historical accuracy - The Brits and Americans could have different features in each front, for example.)

Well I disagree, you need at least 4 fronts minimum, Western, Russian, Mediterranean and Pacific, cutting it down to just Pacific and Everywhere Else, won't work. Besides, I don't see the problem with the Japanese vs. the Chinese in France, provided it happens in skirmish, not the campaigns.

[This message has been edited by MatthewII (edited 08-30-2009 @ 07:03 PM).]

ImperialLobster
Skirmisher

posted 08-31-09 05:43 AM EDT (US) 11 / 58

yes have a campaign following true events of WW2, but don't have that in the skirmish mode.
Re the Axis and Allies teaming, I have an idea- At the beginning of a normal game there is an option before play commences- You choose a leader out of 2. For Germany, Hitler, or some other guy, who would be an Allyist not an Axisist.
For China, you can have either an Axisist or a Allyist- its up to you. That is for all the players and civs. Each leader gives a bonus and a disadvantage. Then when the game starts, you might be allied to America, Germany and be against the British, French and Japanese. (turns out the Brits voted for a socialist that time)
You digg me?

KEEP
CALM
AND
CARRY
ON
≤≤≤≤≤See my YouTube channel for some crazy pointless crap!≥≥≥≥≥

NotInvolved
Skirmisher

posted 08-31-09 07:30 AM EDT (US) 12 / 58

Alright, I'll get rid of the fronts.

And the idea of making every civ optional (Allied or Axis) is good. Then we could keep the Ally/Axis teams, but each civ could be on either team.

The Axis should be easy. We can just put resistance leaders in for their Allied leaders. The various anti-Nazi resistance movements (in Germany and the countries which it invaded) were fairly major; as was the Italian resistenza.

The Thai resistance was pretty small, though. And as far as I can tell, there was no Japanese resistance at all, which could be a problem.

The French will also be easy. They can have the Vichy Regime for their Axis version.

For the Soviets, we could do an alternate reality where the Germans never invaded Russia, and they stayed allied throughout the war. But I'm sure someone has a much better idea than that.

I know having resistance fighters would mean that the resistances would have the same quality equipment as the real armies, but we're going to have to live with that for the sake of balance.

Any ideas for the Thais, Japanese, Brits, Americans, or Australians?

EDIT: And just so you know, I'll also need some help with the vehicles (planes, tanks, boats, etc.) for each civ. I'm not really an expert.

EDIT 2: Some of the leaders are up. As always, I'm looking for any better ideas that you might have. And I was thinking: If we do use the system where any civ can be Allied or Axis, we could get rid of Thailand, if there was someone better to replace them with. I was thinking Finland, as they did fight against both the Soviets and the Nazis, so they would be a good choice for a game where you could choose which side to be on.

[This message has been edited by NotInvolved (edited 08-31-2009 @ 08:23 AM).]

MatthewII
Skirmisher

posted 08-31-09 11:37 PM EDT (US) 13 / 58

Finland would indeed be a good replacement for Thailand, they were an independent nation rather than an occupied state.

Old Bachus
Skirmisher

posted 09-01-09 00:35 AM EDT (US) 14 / 58

Finland would be much better I agree. Why Thailand? Doesn't really seem like a one that was that big.

Nonetheless, I really like these plans. Two campaigns, one Allies, and one Axis, would be good. Both would have the same battles, but they will differ as the Allied campaign will happen how the War did in real life; while the Axis campaign will play out in their favour.

Politically correct loons won't like the Axis being anything other then the bad guys, but who cares.

The Brits should have a Commonwealth feature, where you get shipments of soldiers from assorted Commonwealth countries.

Old Bachus, Napoleon of Spam turned half decent forumer
>>Winner of Most Improved AoMH Forumer '09<<
~If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it isn't in Danish, thank King Alfred.~
>>My work<<

"Once you've stooped to Cash4Gold type stuff, you no longer are a celebrity." - Mozzy

MatthewII
Skirmisher

posted 09-01-09 02:01 AM EDT (US) 15 / 58

This site will help with vehicles of the period, as for the rest of it, just look up wikipedia I guess, but starting with places like this, this and this. You could probably speed things up a bit by using the 'See Also' sections of the more common weapons (nearly everyone will know the bazooka, but the British, Germans and Russians had their own systems which are less well-known).

[This message has been edited by MatthewII (edited 09-01-2009 @ 02:05 AM).]

ImperialLobster
Skirmisher

posted 09-01-09 05:38 AM EDT (US) 16 / 58

nukes should only be in the campaign, if at all.
soldiers should have morale, accuracy and rank systems.
shove the political correctness.
Also in a certain age you can revolt, like AOE3.
Eg. Brits can revolt to Canada, or Israel. (not sure about canada)
French can revolt to be Moroccans or something else (not sure).
Chinese, Hong kong or Tibet
Germans, Jewish Resistance or Polish.
ETC

KEEP
CALM
AND
CARRY
ON
≤≤≤≤≤See my YouTube channel for some crazy pointless crap!≥≥≥≥≥

NotInvolved
Skirmisher

posted 09-01-09 05:41 AM EDT (US) 17 / 58

The only reason I used Thailand was because of the Allies/Axis thing. Thailand were the 4th-biggest Axis power, and they would have balanced the game. But I will change them to Finland.

Thanks for the vehicle information. It should come in handy.

I don't think I'll have the revolution thing, though. It couldn't be done for every civ, and I'm not doing ages, anyway. Just technologies.

Nukes will definitely not be in Skirmishes or Multiplayer. They'll probably be in the campaigns, though.

-------------

And as for the campaigns, I was thinking it could go like this:

6 real campaigns (3 Allied, 3 Axis). The Axis campaigns would start off realistic, but would go into alternate-reality by the end.

And every civ who didn't get a proper campaign would get a short campaign (2 or 3 scenarios).

[This message has been edited by NotInvolved (edited 09-01-2009 @ 05:57 AM).]

Old Bachus
Skirmisher

posted 09-01-09 12:40 PM EDT (US) 18 / 58

Your plans for campaigns sound good. Will there be a Home City system?

Mariomasta RJK
Skirmisher

posted 09-01-09 04:20 PM EDT (US) 19 / 58

Well, considering the time period, I believe they should also have airfare included with the game. Adding a new resource (Oil) may also enhance gameplay and make it more realistic.

Resource gathering should continue, but rather than have it like regular AoE, you should have 2 different colonies, one for gathering (functions as a Home City), 1 for warfare/fighting. It should be able to be switched similar to going to the deck screen for shipments.
Resources should have to be shipped over to your military base, take time to ship over, and cost a fee based on weight. Protecting both bases should be essential, as many enemy bases were raided by opposition, such as the oil refineries of the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao).

Building that should be there for warfare

-Barracks
-Docks
-Airbase
-Arsenal
-Storage rooms
-Field hospitals (I Believe these should be more available in the game, and used more often)
-Explosives camp

All the rest of economy buildings should be available for your second City from AoE III.

Btw, i found a list of UK/USA traitors in WW2, people siding with the Axis List of Allied Traitors during WW2

It may make the game significantly harder, but it would end up working out in the end

DISTISOP
ESO: Blitzkrieg_Mario
Prefered civs: Hell, I like them all.
Rank: TWC PR 18 (master sergeant) TAD PR 17, Vanilla PR 12
Clan: Triple Entente
Favorite games: Dofus, AoE 3, Tremulous, CoD 4, SSBB, Urban Terror

[This message has been edited by mariomasta RJK (edited 09-01-2009 @ 04:27 PM).]

NotInvolved
Skirmisher

posted 09-02-09 05:06 AM EDT (US) 20 / 58

Having 2 cities sounds like a good idea.

I don't think the Home City should be fully controllable, though. You could ship over resources and maybe some extra units, but it would mostly be the same as it was in AoE3.

You should be able to attack Home Cities, though. You could send out planes to bomb them, and then your enemy would have to organize AA Guns and rebuilding his HC before he could send out more shipments.

You will still be able to gather wood with your soldiers. You will be able to build most buildings in concrete or wood - wood would be weaker, cheaper, and faster to build. If your HC was under attack (and you couldn't receive any more concrete), then you could simply use wood to build instead.

There will definitely be Aerial warfare. Fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers - that kind of thing.

I like those building ideas. Depending on the map, I think you should also have some other buildings which receive shipments faster (motor pool, airfield).

And thanks a lot for the Allied traitors, but they don't seem like actual leaders. Mostly spies or soldiers for their countries' enemies.

How do you all feel about a sea-only Skirmish map? You would have a few Battleships and Carriers, which were your main base. Then you would mostly fight with planes and boats, to try and capture your enemy's capital ships.

Mariomasta RJK
Skirmisher

posted 09-02-09 07:50 AM EDT (US) 21 / 58

I also think an research center should be available. Atomic researching should be available, and should work like a victory timer, and to stop it the research centerust be blown up. Other techs would be napalm, homing missiles, proximity fuse, biochemical warfare, and more

NotInvolved
Skirmisher

posted 09-02-09 12:29 PM EDT (US) 22 / 58

Thanks.

And I have 2 new ideas (well, one of them is tiny):

1. Morale - I know a lot of you are probably skeptical about morale, because it has been done wrong a few times on here, but I think my idea just might work.

Everyone's morale starts off at 50. There are a lot of things which can boost morale, and a lot of things which can lower it. (For example, if your HC is bombed, morale will go down; but if you win a battle, it will go up. Morale cannot get any lower than 0, nor any higher than 100. It is very rare to get to either of those extremes.

Your troops' stats increase as your morale level goes up; and they decrease as it goes down. When there is not much happening, your morale slowly goes up. However, your morale can't go higher than 60 without something actually happening.

Other effects of morale:
Really low morale means that there is a tiny chance your troops will surrender in battle. This means they simply stop fighting and leave the game.

Really high morale means that your troops are willing to fight much more before they start to lose morale. This means that you lose morale slower, the more you have.

(I know it would be more realistic for every group of units to have their own morale level, but that would be insanely complicated. The game's more playable if you just have to manage one morale level.)

Some things which could lower morale:

*Losing a building (particularly houses/tents, kitchens, and supply drops)
*Losing a battle (particularly one close to your own base)
*HC being bombed
*Your base being bombed (even if you don't lose any units or buildings)

Some things which could boost morale:

*Not fighting for a while
*Winning a battle
*Getting shipments from the HC
*Enemy units surrendering

2. Soundtrack
Every country has a few unique songs for their soundtrack. They will be the country's national anthem, and a few songs from the country. For example, the Germans would get Deutschland Uber Alles, as well as a few marching brass band songs.

Trismagistos
Skirmisher

posted 09-02-09 03:42 PM EDT (US) 23 / 58

Some units would have the special "Fighting Zeal" or "Bloodthirst" trait. They would LOSE moral if they don't fight for a long time. KILL, KILL, KILL FOR THE MOTHERLAND!!!!11

And I don't think individual moral states would be so complicated.
BTW, what about infantry in this game? Are they recruited individually or in squads?

Mariomasta RJK
Skirmisher

posted 09-02-09 08:05 PM EDT (US) 24 / 58

I don't see why not a bit of both, like russia in AoE 3, but things like tanks should be made 1 at a time.

For soundtrack, I have the national anthem of the countries mentioned, not much of a music person but thought it might help

German Anthem

French Anthem My fav

American Anthem It is better w/out singing

British anthem

Russian Anthem

Japanese Anthem (music)

Italian Anthem

Finnish Anthem

Only few of these can I actually consider possible fight/battle themes.

The funny thing is, i understood about as much of the UK anthem as I did the russian (and i dun speak russian

)

Roderic
Skirmisher

posted 09-03-09 07:08 AM EDT (US) 25 / 58

Some things which could lower morale:

*Losing a building (particularly houses/tents, kitchens, and supply drops)
*Losing a battle (particularly one close to your own base)
*HC being bombed
*Your base being bombed (even if you don't lose any units or buildings)

Some things which could boost morale:

*Not fighting for a while
*Winning a battle
*Getting shipments from the HC
*Enemy units surrendering

I suggest the tech of propagand as an addition: you pay for some broadcasting of news or posters (often fake). They temporally low the morale of enemy units or boost yours. You can strategely send one immediately before to an attack. Mass media were (and are) actively used during war to that purpose.

« Previous Page 1 2 3 Next Page »

Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » Future Robot, Bonfire, Windstorm, and NewToy Games Forum » What would make a WW2 RTS work?

Top