Spring is an unusual subject in the RTS world due to scripts.
Spring can load a script and a map and thus have a prebuilt abse with units if configured correctly.
So I propose to you what I a turn based game was created. You built mechs every turn based on produce built buildings etc.
When you start a battle, the engine generates a script and thus starts spring.exe tlling ti to laod the cript generated.
Thus a game appears in spring bearing all the trademarks of a Total War battle.
Spring is not just an RTS game, it's the gateway to the future of strategy. Spring will go further than any non-commercial engine has gone before in strategy. The rate of development and conribution, the massive industrial might of the TA community, the experience and suggestions of some of the best online, all provided without charge, in great numbers.
Just remember, INNOVATE
Spring:Total War
Moderator: Moderators
I'm not sure I really follow you. Do you mean something like the Galatic War of late Boneyard, of late Gaming Battle Leage, and of still going Phoenix Worx, but where, instead of starting ervery battles over on a pristine map with no units, different players would pass their bases and units from players to players via the savegame / load script functionnality?
If so, that would indeed be an awesome concept, but horrendously difficult to balance. I mean, usually, once a player get the upper hand, it's only a matter of time till he win entirely. Also, we would have to wait to have a stable, crash-proof, and standardized version of Spring.
I also think that the such project should not be run by the Swedish Yankspanker. They are busy enough with the engine, we can't also ask them to generate a working meta-game system. Let's just hope they will implement all the input and output thingy to automatically send and load script from a server, and let's ask GBL_Cire or NM Dange to do the rest.
If so, that would indeed be an awesome concept, but horrendously difficult to balance. I mean, usually, once a player get the upper hand, it's only a matter of time till he win entirely. Also, we would have to wait to have a stable, crash-proof, and standardized version of Spring.
I also think that the such project should not be run by the Swedish Yankspanker. They are busy enough with the engine, we can't also ask them to generate a working meta-game system. Let's just hope they will implement all the input and output thingy to automatically send and load script from a server, and let's ask GBL_Cire or NM Dange to do the rest.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
I don't think that is what he meant, zwzsg, but your misinterpretation is an even better idea! It would take a lot of balancing, but it could be quite cool... For example, have planet maps that actually tile with each other, so that when a sector is won, the player can move on to the next sector of a planet, with some unit continuity between sectors, etc.
Then reinforcements could arrive from an ajoining sector, either in the forum of a victorious player, or in the form of donations from an oncoming sector.
Ie: you recieve the message "PLAYER X in adjoining sector 2-C requests urgent reinforcements!"
Then you can opt to donate some of your forces for reinforcements, or keep your units and risk having a very exposed flank when your ally in the next sector falters, and your other enemy rolls in.
Of course, this could seem unfair, but remember, you have 4 flanks to worry about, each one potentially offering a new threat, or a helpful ally.
Then conquered planets could offer "transports" of units which can be requested for reinforcements by any player (assuming availability), but which take a while to arrive, etc.
It just makes for a far more fluid galactic war game.
Then reinforcements could arrive from an ajoining sector, either in the forum of a victorious player, or in the form of donations from an oncoming sector.
Ie: you recieve the message "PLAYER X in adjoining sector 2-C requests urgent reinforcements!"
Then you can opt to donate some of your forces for reinforcements, or keep your units and risk having a very exposed flank when your ally in the next sector falters, and your other enemy rolls in.
Of course, this could seem unfair, but remember, you have 4 flanks to worry about, each one potentially offering a new threat, or a helpful ally.
Then conquered planets could offer "transports" of units which can be requested for reinforcements by any player (assuming availability), but which take a while to arrive, etc.
It just makes for a far more fluid galactic war game.
-
BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
lol we all have :) but ROME:TW was never used online as a turn based, maybe a campaign aka generals??? winning sectors and after a time whoever has the most wins?? in the beginning having tech levels restricted until ur side conquer enough sectors??? u could have teams??? a quickmatch system??? please??? :)
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
But the beauty of it is that not only the commanders would be able to use galactic gates! The whole army of a previous game could be kept. And not only galactic gates could be used to travel from planet to planet, but, if mod support is enabled, if TA:FF is ported, and if I'm not the only one to like it and think it blends well in OTA, you could also have space cruiser factories added in the OTA cons builtree in the last game played on a planet, have a player build a starfleet, have another player another day use this exact same space fleet on a space map for some space battle, have a third player a third day use what remains of the space fleet to lead an assault on another planet, and fourth player a fourth day continue to wage the war on that planet with ground units. Yeah I know I'm dreaming, not everybody would like to be forced to play the Final Frontier mod inbetween planet.
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Well, as I saw it, zw, TAFF needn't be applied (I know you like it, but again, you can't really force people to play it if they don't want too). The space transport bit would be completely automatic. You would look on the galaxy map, and see little ships travelling backwards and forwards between planets with little ETA signs on them.
But the main precept of the idea is that each planet has a number of sectors which all tile with each other, so that there is interaction on a micro scale between allies fighting on planets, and interaction on a macro scale, so that conquered planets don't just sit around doing nothing, but can actually help you.
The issue, of course, is balancing. Its hardly fair for a player to deal with massive reinforcements from another player who is clearly going to win, so there would have to be caps (as well as ETA times between maps). In terms of reinforcements, the only reinforcements you could get would be from embattled players, so reinforcements could go either way, and reinforcements could change the tide of battle on either side. Imagine you're feeling quite safe, and your neighbour calls for reinforcements, so you donate some of your units to him, then *bam* surprise flank attack. You don't have the units to respond, so you buckle and fail. Then the player who requested the reinforcements has an empty flank with units from that previous battle surging in...
But the main precept of the idea is that each planet has a number of sectors which all tile with each other, so that there is interaction on a micro scale between allies fighting on planets, and interaction on a macro scale, so that conquered planets don't just sit around doing nothing, but can actually help you.
The issue, of course, is balancing. Its hardly fair for a player to deal with massive reinforcements from another player who is clearly going to win, so there would have to be caps (as well as ETA times between maps). In terms of reinforcements, the only reinforcements you could get would be from embattled players, so reinforcements could go either way, and reinforcements could change the tide of battle on either side. Imagine you're feeling quite safe, and your neighbour calls for reinforcements, so you donate some of your units to him, then *bam* surprise flank attack. You don't have the units to respond, so you buckle and fail. Then the player who requested the reinforcements has an empty flank with units from that previous battle surging in...
Whoa, that's sweet idea, zwszsg. Problem is, if it were to be truly competitive, then the what units carried over would be have to stored on a central server that was very secure, very secure indeed.
Although its not impossible. If you played a game, you would "receive" a unitset from a previous player in the same side as yourself, and the server woudl donate them to you.
Edit: And its not entirely inconceivable that you could "send units between two games". You could have a galactic Gate unit in one game that destroys the units of one player, and the galactic Gate unit on the other end that spawns them (with very high workertime for the factory, basically) in the other game. The problem would be in creating a good middleman.
Although its not impossible. If you played a game, you would "receive" a unitset from a previous player in the same side as yourself, and the server woudl donate them to you.
Edit: And its not entirely inconceivable that you could "send units between two games". You could have a galactic Gate unit in one game that destroys the units of one player, and the galactic Gate unit on the other end that spawns them (with very high workertime for the factory, basically) in the other game. The problem would be in creating a good middleman.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Yes, I meant mid-game transfers. In game transfers are far easier to balance then transfers between levels. One could amass an enormous force before finishing off the last remnants of an enemy base, and then just use that army to wipe the floor with the next level.
Of course, I can already think of a decent way to balance that: You could put in certain limits, ie: you can only take a certain percentage of troops with you to the next battle, the rest are required to 'garrison' that area. Then you invade the next area with whatever troops you are allowed.
Now presumably, that area was won previously by another player, and so he already has a certain amount of troops (assuming they weren't syphoned off as reinforcements) left in that sector to garrison it. Thus both players would start off more or less equal, in a gameplay setup very similar to OTA missions. Indeed, in this style of gameplay, the presence of commanders is no longer a fundamental requirement of a battle (just a side thought).
Of course, there would still be maps where just commanders meet (only on heavily contested planets would there really be much unit carry-over, and it would require that there are numerous player's playing on many different sectors at once, etc.
... Anyway, as for units not being able to spawn in-game, as far as I'm concerned, that's OTA thinking. Remember we have the source code here. The engine is more or less what we make of it. If the mid-game spawning/removal (reinforcements) of units is deemed a worthy inclusion in the game (for Galactic War uses), then it can be coded in. Otherwise, as it has been previously suggested, there are always scripting ways around such barriers.
The idea of reinforcements and more interaction between players makes the game far more cohesive, with players feeling like they are actually in a "war", rather than individual battles. If players have to work together to advance to further area's of the battlefield (or to hold a vital planet). Indeed, planet's themselves become just as strategic as sectors on a planet, as nearby controlled planets can provide reinforcements, and so on (so the reinforcement thing would more often be of advantage to the defender rather than the attacker [a good thing IMO], as friendly planets would be nearer by if you are on the back foot.)
Of course, I can already think of a decent way to balance that: You could put in certain limits, ie: you can only take a certain percentage of troops with you to the next battle, the rest are required to 'garrison' that area. Then you invade the next area with whatever troops you are allowed.
Now presumably, that area was won previously by another player, and so he already has a certain amount of troops (assuming they weren't syphoned off as reinforcements) left in that sector to garrison it. Thus both players would start off more or less equal, in a gameplay setup very similar to OTA missions. Indeed, in this style of gameplay, the presence of commanders is no longer a fundamental requirement of a battle (just a side thought).
Of course, there would still be maps where just commanders meet (only on heavily contested planets would there really be much unit carry-over, and it would require that there are numerous player's playing on many different sectors at once, etc.
... Anyway, as for units not being able to spawn in-game, as far as I'm concerned, that's OTA thinking. Remember we have the source code here. The engine is more or less what we make of it. If the mid-game spawning/removal (reinforcements) of units is deemed a worthy inclusion in the game (for Galactic War uses), then it can be coded in. Otherwise, as it has been previously suggested, there are always scripting ways around such barriers.
The idea of reinforcements and more interaction between players makes the game far more cohesive, with players feeling like they are actually in a "war", rather than individual battles. If players have to work together to advance to further area's of the battlefield (or to hold a vital planet). Indeed, planet's themselves become just as strategic as sectors on a planet, as nearby controlled planets can provide reinforcements, and so on (so the reinforcement thing would more often be of advantage to the defender rather than the attacker [a good thing IMO], as friendly planets would be nearer by if you are on the back foot.)
I'm thining that a planet once won cannot be returned to untill it is contested again where your abse as it was when gae won is spawned and the enemy assails from a new base and a selection of units absed on how any lanets he already has.
A planet would provide a et aount of resources for a commander and perhaps a token allowing a taskforce to be sent with the commander. Or perhaps each player has a cold storage where it can build a building ingae and send units off to their deaths for storage to be rbought back in another game at a future date.
To prevent the foration of monopolies, units are weaened by the percentage of the universe their owner controls and attacking weaker players have an advantage equal to the difference in percentage of cotnrol
A planet would provide a et aount of resources for a commander and perhaps a token allowing a taskforce to be sent with the commander. Or perhaps each player has a cold storage where it can build a building ingae and send units off to their deaths for storage to be rbought back in another game at a future date.
To prevent the foration of monopolies, units are weaened by the percentage of the universe their owner controls and attacking weaker players have an advantage equal to the difference in percentage of cotnrol