hey guys you might be intrested in a stratgey rpg called desicive campagians

[crazyroosterman]

http://store.steampowered.com/app/454530/ thoughts guys? it looks super dope to me.

[crazyroosterman]

giving this a tiny bump just in case it got missed anybody the first time around.

[Draco18s]

Huh.  Looks like one part of the kind of wargame I'd really enjoy.  Only a part, though.

That being the campaign structure: managing high-level tactics about where to send troops and deal with front lines and supply routes.

But I'd still want the smaller scope of being able to get into the action on a smaller level, take part in a single battle.  As in, yeah, I decided to push the center with these troops, hold the lines here and there, let those guys retreat...but then have to pick one of those fights and accomplish that goal on an RTS (or even FPS!) scale.  If I succeed, awesome, battle moves forward as planned.  I hug up and fail? (including dying in the FPS scope) then things pull back and that higher level decision doesn't work out as planned.

[crazyroosterman]

does that include the part of you dealing with the military infestructure? because I feel that may make or break it for a lot of people(for instance having to retreat a regiment as stalin and then going bonkers and not being able to do anything for a couple turns(at least I presume that's part of how playing as stalin works) because that part is what makes me interested in it.

[Draco18s]

I just mean in the sense of having a campaign in an RTS not depend on winning every map. If you lose, so what, that just means that the plot goes in a different direction.

[crazyroosterman]

I just mean in the sense of having a campaign in an RTS not depend on winning every map. If you lose, so what, that just means that the plot goes in a different direction.

I think there's only one map per game?....ill check up on that though for you on the forums your not going to find something that persifick out without talking to players.

[Draco18s]

....I was talking standard RTS maps. Like Red Alert, Starcraft, etc.  I want to change up the idea of "you lost, play again."

XCOM kinda does that, but so many other aspects of that game aren't very good.

[crazyroosterman]

....I was talking standard RTS maps. Like Red Alert, Starcraft, etc.  I want to change up the idea of "you lost, play again."

XCOM kinda does that, but so many other aspects of that game aren't very good.

ahh I see again ill ask about it on the forums sorry had a bit of a brain fart there but I don't think this game is designed in that way btw ill get back to you on that.

[TheVampire100]

....I was talking standard RTS maps. Like Red Alert, Starcraft, etc.  I want to change up the idea of "you lost, play again."

XCOM kinda does that, but so many other aspects of that game aren't very good.

Dawn of War 2 had something like this I think. When you lost a map, you didn't loose the entire game but the Tyranid infection grew larger. However, the game was more of an action rpg type of game instead of a real RTS.

Earth 2150 worked also like this. You could loose a map and go on (except some real very important maps) but you lost all resources from this map.
The game was basically a resource run. You had to achieve a fixed amount of resources for the exodus ship to flee the planet. There was a timer ticking, reminding you that you have not infinite time to gather everything you need. You could use resources on a map either to produce units on the map to fulfill the objective or you could send them with a special building back to your headquarter (which you can view at any time in the game). Loosing a single mission just meant that you got a cut in your resources or that you couldn't unlock the new research project that your team was workign on. I think however, if you lost too many missions the leaders of your nation removed you from duty because of your many fails. It's too long since I played this game.

[Toranth]

....I was talking standard RTS maps. Like Red Alert, Starcraft, etc.  I want to change up the idea of "you lost, play again."

XCOM kinda does that, but so many other aspects of that game aren't very good.

Dawn of War 2 had something like this I think. When you lost a map, you didn't loose the entire game but the Tyranid infection grew larger. However, the game was more of an action rpg type of game instead of a real RTS.

Dawn of War 1: Dark Crusade and Soulstorm were like that, yeah.  I loved those games.  I always wanted a mechanic like that.  Unfortunately, the AI wasn't very good at dealing with it.
I don't remember DoW 2 doing that - but I never played it as much as I did the DoW 1 titles.

[Draco18s]

I think however, if you lost too many missions the leaders of your nation removed you from duty because of your many fails. It's too long since I played this game.

Well yeah, at some point you have to call "game over" because frankly you frikkin' lost.
I just want that more on par with other war strategy games:
Plan those continent-spanning maneuvers (ah la what it looks like Decisive Campaigns is all about), but then dive in and participate in one smaller battle on an RTS scale.

The original idea I had had you dive all the way down to a single soldier on the ground (albeit something a little more durable than a peon) that when you died (or retreated), you popped back out to the RTS scale for the remainder of the skirmish.  For the FPS portion the RTS would be run by the AI (and at this point RTS games have pretty decent AI).

If you managed to do something crazy like infiltrate the enemy base and blow it up, such that the RTS scale is skipped (at least in terms of player interaction) on account of having already won, then cool: You, as a dude, accomplished a major victory (like most FPS games seem to make you out to be).  But if you died, oh well, here have an RTS to finish things off with.  Oh you lost that too?  Well, you lost that province, but your other objectives are still standing (large scale tactical board).

And there's no reason that the player would even be required to participate on any given scale, either. I mean heck, set things up right and you could actually play Saving Private Ryan as the AI handles the large scale tactical board and the individual skirmishes while you, as a dude, run around shooting stuff until you die.  The front lines would be ever shifting as the AI gains and loses ground at the higher levels outside your scope of vision, while you run around doing whatever needs to be done.

I'm blanking on which MMO it was, but it was one of the really early ones that was basically isometic.  But they did some crazy awesome stuff with AI.  All the NPCs have actual lives where they would get tasks, go out and complete them, come back and sleep at night and so on.  Ah! STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl.  That took a little googling, and apparently I was wrong about the isometic aspect, I only remember reading an article about it once.

Take that concept, apply it to the NPC units inside the skirmish while at FPS scale (with the RTS commands filtering down into the goal/task system, I mean this is the army we're talking about) and you can abstract unloaded areas down to numbers until the player gets there.   You don't even need to perfectly save information: as the player moves out and then comes back, the tide of battle may have shifted slightly, doesn't matter that the game respawned Private Jones in a different place than it despawned him from.

[crazyroosterman]

....I was talking standard RTS maps. Like Red Alert, Starcraft, etc.  I want to change up the idea of "you lost, play again."

XCOM kinda does that, but so many other aspects of that game aren't very good.

Dawn of War 2 had something like this I think. When you lost a map, you didn't loose the entire game but the Tyranid infection grew larger. However, the game was more of an action rpg type of game instead of a real RTS.

Earth 2150 worked also like this. You could loose a map and go on (except some real very important maps) but you lost all resources from this map.
The game was basically a resource run. You had to achieve a fixed amount of resources for the exodus ship to flee the planet. There was a timer ticking, reminding you that you have not infinite time to gather everything you need. You could use resources on a map either to produce units on the map to fulfill the objective or you could send them with a special building back to your headquarter (which you can view at any time in the game). Loosing a single mission just meant that you got a cut in your resources or that you couldn't unlock the new research project that your team was workign on. I think however, if you lost too many missions the leaders of your nation removed you from duty because of your many fails. It's too long since I played this game.

that sounds realy rather great although id like to ask what the battling was like? (i presume theirs something of the sort there since you mention units) also are either of you 2 curious in the title mentioned game? just seems apropriate to ask realy.

[TheVampire100]

I assume you mean Earth 2150? It was the typical standard RTS battle. You control units, you move them around and order them to attack, everything in real time.
There are two types of weapons, projectile (the clasic weapons we have nowadays too, like rockets and machine guns) and energy weapons (futuristic weapons with special abilities). All units had four types of "HP" stats. The classic HP, named "hull" when reduced to zero the unit dies. Then there are shields. Shields block all energy weapons and only them, when they are reduced to zero, they deactivate and energy weapons can harm the hull like normal. Unlike hull, shields recharge/heal when not attacked. Then there is temperature which works exactly the opposite. Instead of reducing it to zero you want it to get as high as possible. Overheated units will explode eventually. Eelectronics won't kill a unit when reduced to zero, instead they are disabeled and cannot move or fire anymore. You can repair them however, the enemy can do the SAME and claim your units this way.
Projectile weapons are the classic weapons that are designed to hurt buildings and units, they reduce hull and only hull. Energy weapons are special weapons researched during the campaign. Every faction has their own energy weapon with special abilities. The UCS has fast firing plasma cannons that deal huge damage to hull but less too shields. The ED has big lasers that heat up units, so they explode, ignoring the hull. They have also Ion cannons that disable the electronics of enemies but does zero damage. The LC has lightning modules that stun enemeies for a short duration and do additionally to the normal damage some electronics damage. They also have some kind of earthquake or shockwave generator that can hit multiple enemies at once. Bu on the other side the have the weakest units of all in the game.
You can assemble your untis to your own liking. Every faction has multiple chassises to choose from, from normal "tanks" to walkikng "mechs". Each chassis can mount one or multiple types of weapon and you can choose what weapon you want to place. You create your own custom units this way. The sequel, Earth 2160, expanded the idea even more. You can now also decide what kind of motor and what armor plating you want for your unit. however, I think the sequel is inferior compared to 2150.

Additionally to all above every unit needs ammo. Unlike most other RTS games your units won't have infinite ammo. You need to fill out ammo depots and send refill drones on the battlefield (this is automated btw) so they can keep shooting. it is adviced to manually refill your units between battles. As fasr as I rememebr energy weapons don't have to be refilled because they recharge themself but they have a lower ammo pool than projectile weapons.

[crazyroosterman]

I assume you mean Earth 2150? It was the typical standard RTS battle. You control units, you move them around and order them to attack, everything in real time.
There are two types of weapons, projectile (the clasic weapons we have nowadays too, like rockets and machine guns) and energy weapons (futuristic weapons with special abilities). All units had four types of "HP" stats. The classic HP, named "hull" when reduced to zero the unit dies. Then there are shields. Shields block all energy weapons and only them, when they are reduced to zero, they deactivate and energy weapons can harm the hull like normal. Unlike hull, shields recharge/heal when not attacked. Then there is temperature which works exactly the opposite. Instead of reducing it to zero you want it to get as high as possible. Overheated units will explode eventually. Eelectronics won't kill a unit when reduced to zero, instead they are disabeled and cannot move or fire anymore. You can repair them however, the enemy can do the SAME and claim your units this way.
Projectile weapons are the classic weapons that are designed to hurt buildings and units, they reduce hull and only hull. Energy weapons are special weapons researched during the campaign. Every faction has their own energy weapon with special abilities. The UCS has fast firing plasma cannons that deal huge damage to hull but less too shields. The ED has big lasers that heat up units, so they explode, ignoring the hull. They have also Ion cannons that disable the electronics of enemies but does zero damage. The LC has lightning modules that stun enemeies for a short duration and do additionally to the normal damage some electronics damage. They also have some kind of earthquake or shockwave generator that can hit multiple enemies at once. Bu on the other side the have the weakest units of all in the game.
You can assemble your untis to your own liking. Every faction has multiple chassises to choose from, from normal "tanks" to walkikng "mechs". Each chassis can mount one or multiple types of weapon and you can choose what weapon you want to place. You create your own custom units this way. The sequel, Earth 2160, expanded the idea even more. You can now also decide what kind of motor and what armor plating you want for your unit. however, I think the sequel is inferior compared to 2150.

Additionally to all above every unit needs ammo. Unlike most other RTS games your units won't have infinite ammo. You need to fill out ammo depots and send refill drones on the battlefield (this is automated btw) so they can keep shooting. it is adviced to manually refill your units between battles. As fasr as I rememebr energy weapons don't have to be refilled because they recharge themself but they have a lower ammo pool than projectile weapons.

thanks I'm definitely going to put that on list of games i want to get when i have the time to actual play the dam things
does decisive campaigns interest you at all though? personal i love the idea of trying to run a war with other people from your own side constantly interfering hopefully that parts actualy going to fun and not just horribly irritating in a bad way.

[TheVampire100]

The game sounds interesting but the price is currentlx too high for me, so I won't get it at this point.