Age of Strategy Forums

Hi guys,

Fairly new to the AoS scene (especially the multiplayer side), but I've been playing strategy games from WAY back (back when they were played on tables, with REAL dice.... ) and nothing says strategy like a good multiplayer campaign.

I haven't worked anything out yet, but it would be comprised of players fighting over territories on a large map (an image of a map, not an actual AoS map) where players (or teams if we get enough players) invade the territories of other players/teams to win territories. Like I said, purely conceptual stage at the moment. Need to see if there's enough interest before I invest my time making this up. If you are interested, leave a message here.

Also, suggestions are ALWAYS welcome, but not always accepted. Throw ideas at me and we'll see if we can make something work.

Interesting idea, but it would be very very difficult to implement. This would be awesome if it made it in someday though!

DoomCarrot wrote:Interesting idea, but it would be very very difficult to implement. This would be awesome if it made it in someday though!

I've run tournaments in other strategy games before. The hardest part is finding enough players and keeping them interested. As long as we could get 4+ players on here (the forum) it wouldn't be that hard.

Well me and Daniel are always here.

Yes, I think it would have to be run like a tournament, not an in game gamemode

Also, I would totally be in for a something like this, and there are quite a few other players here who are 100% dependable

If I understand you mean to create a map like this, where players take turns "attacking" territories in which an actual game on the map follows, until eventually someone conquers the entire map? I know, I know, I just threw this image together in like 5 minutes.

screen shot pc

lol where is Great River in this?

DoomCarrot wrote:If I understand you mean to create a map like this, where players take turns "attacking" territories in which an actual game on the map follows, until eventually someone conquers the entire map? I know, I know, I just threw this image together in like 5 minutes.

screen shot pc

Yeah, exactly.

Nice work with the map too... For 5 minutes work I am impressed. Ideally, I would prefer teams as it adds to the fun of it, but if not so be it.

Yes, I don't really know how teams would work though

I would love to see something done like this. It would be really cool.

sorry i dont really get the idea, please someone write here the flow of events in such game setup(setups)

Players start "owning" an area of the map. Players take turns "attacking" territories. When a territory is attacked, a game is held on the map. If the attacker wins the game, theyntake over the territory.

DoomCarrot wrote:Players start "owning" an area of the map. Players take turns "attacking" territories. When a territory is attacked, a game is held on the map. If the attacker wins the game, theyntake over the territory.

This is a similar setup to total war games, anyone ever played? This would be one world, and there could also be tiers, where players move up and play similarly rated players based on performance

A problem with this would be time. Games are long enough as it is, so can you imagine if there are sets of games, where if players trade territories back and forth with each other there could be dozens of games?

Yes, I agree; it would take a considerable amount of time to completely finish as one territory may be battled over many times. But I think it would be worth it as it gives a purpose/meaning to the conflict.

DoomCarrot wrote:Yes, I don't really know how teams would work though

Simple: say you and I are a team. We can invade together (2 players on a team), individually go for separate territories (I attack territory A, you attack territory B) or one player attacks and the other defends already-conquered territories.

Team play introduces a whole new layer of strategy beyond "just winning games". We could attack simultaneously, but leave ourselves open to attack, etc... I thoroughly enjoy team strategy games.

But hey, I'm weird....

Yes, but I don't know how that system would really work... a 2 vs 1 is basically an automatic win.

sorry but i must ask again if i understand right:

- my sample "flow of events" is played with 2 players (for easy understanding)
- players have a new "scene" of "world" (as one drawn above), that consist of 5-6 random "maps" to be played, and the "world" and its owner relations are saved to server. There can be many "worlds", each can have its own "world name". (Q: who creates the worlds?)
- each player starts on one of the the "corners" of the new world scene, owning one territory.
- all other territories are AI owned at the beginning
- now any of the players can fight against AIs to take control of new territories
- once they have adjacent other human player (multiplayer) then they can attack the others' territory to fight it.
- (remark: a "fight" is like a random map (if played against AI) or multipléayer game (if played against a player))
- at the end all AI must be eliminated and all territories must be owned by a single player. (Q: does the player have any advantage by owning more and more territories? (eg. more starting cities on fighting the random map or something)?)



am i close to understand the idea?

Yes, almost perfectly. I wasn't going to ask for any support for the campaign from the actual game though (worlds saved to the server, etc) and just use the forum to update maps after wins/losses. But IF you did build it into the game, I would pay real money to support that.

In terms of advantages for more territories, I was thinking about this and how to make it proportionally balanced and reflective of a larger empire. Any ideas? (More TCs is a good one).

the idea is good, but i am afraid of players that do not finish their single multiplayer game - how will they finish such a multi-game-world...
so i think there should be a "global map" instead, where any multiplayer can start fighting each other... if someone does not take turn -> will fall out of the "world-server" - i am not sure if stupid things i am thinking here ...

That's a great idea! I like that.

Not sure if it's possible, but you could even set it up so that if player 1 attacks player 2 territory, it generates the game for the 2 players on the relevant map...

Or am I dreaming?

yes, and yes, we all

Oh my....

Has there been any progress on this?

I wasn't joking around when I said I would pay to support this. Or if there's anything else I could do to help, let me know. I think this would be such a fun idea and would really like to see it happen.

You guys are talking the ultimate here! Top Shelf for sure!...what about when armies meet of the same colors from different territories, or how would all the armies be separate from another?

Each player would have a color on the map, and keep that color through the entire campaign and individual games

I guess I'm not understanding the number of players?... a 6 player game.. or...a 6 team game up to 36 players?

I'm not exactly sure how this would work, but the idea sounds great. Not that the game itself is boring, but this would add a new concept and possibly make people put more effort into multi-player battles

Now that finals are over and summer is on the way (woohoo! ) I am strongly considering attempting a small-scale version of this. I am thinking a 4 player free for all, or perhaps a 2 vs 2 team campaign. However, I'm not entirely sure how teams would work in terms of attacking/defending, as like I said earlier, a 2 vs 1 game would be stupid, even if it is occasional. I'm trying to come up with some way where 2 v 2, 1 v 1, are both possible, but 2 v 1 almost never happens, or can't happen at all.

I hope someone understands what I'm saying, I need some brainstorming here

I'm DEFINITELY interested.

2 vs 1is only an option if (and only if) the team that supplies 1 player gets to do a free invasion (no actual battle) to claim an uncontested territory. Seems pointless I know but there may be a strategic advantage to losing a territory deliberately to gain a different one.

Anyway, put me down.