![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: What kind of campaign? | |||
| Land-based |
|
10 | 47.62% |
| Sea-based |
|
11 | 52.38% |
| Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
I was thinking of the new MP campaign system in RO:HOS and thought how that could be transfered to Rising Storm. The way I'm imagining it, there are two possibilities:
Land-based campaign: The campaign is based on one island, city or country. So if the attackers win, they choose in which direction to advance and the battle shifts to the next map, but the fighting continues on the same battlefield (just like RO:HOS' campaign is fully set in one city). Suitable for large battlefields. Example: Round 1 has the Americans attacking the beaches of Iwo Jima, and after they win the players vote to attack Mount Suribachi. Sea-based campaign: The campaign is based on an island region in the Pacific, or even the entire Pacific AO. So if the attackers win, that island is considered captured and the attackers can then choose which island (map) in the ocean to attack next. Suitable for small islands. Example: Round 1 resulted in the Marines capturing Saipan. They then vote to attack Peleliu. I think both would be fun and worth implementing, so players get more MP variety. But if you HAVE to choose, which one do you pick? Just thinking aloud... |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it depends what map it is. For big islands that took a longer time to capture and had a larger variety of battle scenarios then it should be land based, e.g. Peleliu. For smaller islands it should be single maps. E.g. Iwo Jima.
Pelelui Landing US Win > Pelelui Airfield US Win > Okinawa IJN Win > Pelelui Airfield IJN Win > Etc |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sea-based unless Rising Storm ended up only covering a large campaign like Guadalcanal, the Philippines, or Okinawa (so we could have both US Army & USMC troops).
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sea based, I like island hopping :3
__________________
Formerly Extremity Specs: 8GB RAM, GTX 460, i5-3570k |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sea-based for sure.
It could allow for some Dawn of War: Dark Crusades kind of thing, where specific regions contain certain benefits. For example capturing an island with an airbase gives you the use of a plane, or gets you in range to attack an island in the rear (final map maybe) circumventing others, making that one map very important (should be able to put up a very heavy defensive line though:P) |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Now that the commander in HOS can choose different types of support, it gives room for many possibilities. Especially if the game remembers which map was played the previous round. So for example, the attacking side won a map and is about to choose the next island to attack. Island X has an airstrip, whereas Island Y provides a difficult barrier for naval ships. So if they capture X, they get air support during the battle for Island Z. And if they capture island Y, they get naval artillery. Of course this is from the perspective of the attacker, but similar 'combat power bonusses' can and should be added for the Japanese side as well. I can already imagine what it would be like: after each round, the players get to see a map of the AO and the attackers have to vote. And maybe the defenders can vote for different kinds of 'combat power' as well, for example extra reinforcements. Or extra machine gun slots. Or extra artillery. Maybe the defenders can even choose where they place their static guns. The better the defenders fight (not wasting reinforcements etc), the more combat power they can use for the next round. If they play awfully they might not receive artillery at all. This would encourage careful and tactical gameplay. Anyway, the attackers vote to attack the island that has the airstrip and win. In the next round you get to be the platoon commander and receive an air support option (because you captured the airstrip). So you call your radioman who has a portable radio on his back, call in support and soon an F4U Corsair strafes enemy positions with rockets. ![]() Oh man, the possibilities... this would add a ton of tactical depth. Would be a great addition for RO:HOS, too. Last edited by Nimsky; 09-09-2010 at 03:00 PM. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
So each island is one map? I think to extend the campaign time overall there should be 2-4 maps for larger islands, marines can't capture a freakin island in one day!
I really like the idea of having a strategic choice in choosing which island to attack next, like the airfield that was exampled above, it could provide strafing/bombing/supply-drops for the rest of the campaign and could prove very useful. Or maybe you can capture a enemies barracks on a island and get a slight man power bonus if you need it. Of course there are many other things like tank depots and all so yeah Nimsky, the possibilities are endless.
__________________
Formerly Extremity Specs: 8GB RAM, GTX 460, i5-3570k |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
#1 Bonzai charger |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm talking about the idea T.T
"So if the attackers win, that island is considered captured"
__________________
Formerly Extremity Specs: 8GB RAM, GTX 460, i5-3570k |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
In my example I meant sea-based campaigns, yeah.
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
#1 Bonzai charger |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yeah, but it doesn't have to be the whole island either. I'd be fine with abstract versions of the islands which you capture only partially. Even the smallest of islands would be too big for an RO map.
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Aye to that Nimsky. Anything is cool at this point.
__________________
Formerly Extremity Specs: 8GB RAM, GTX 460, i5-3570k |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|