Civil War MMO

[Broughden]

Was batting some ideas around for a new MMO with a friend a couple days ago and wanted to see what you guys thought of this....

The large majority of MMO's to date have been your traditional "elf+magic=nerd $" variety. We were thinking a completely untapped market which might draw in non-traditional MMO players might be basing them on historical periods, and adding in an element of strategic war gaming at the same time. One idea tossed out was the mythological story of the founding of Ireland and the war between the humans, firbolgs, and tuatha de'danan. But then that all seemed to be a little to close to Gods and Heros so we decided to go more modern.

The next idea which got tossed out was that of the American Civil War. Some of the random ideas we had while brain storming....

- 1 race.....human. Surprise!

- 4 or 5 different factions: Confederate, Union, French, Native American Indian, possibly freed slave if we could do it tastefully

- Multiple career paths: Soldier, spy, scout, doctor, quarter master (the crafting class), guerrilla fighter, etc etc.

- PVP is every where all the time. You are at war...duh.

- Harsh death penalty. Thinking like a 30 min to 1 hour time out for that character after dying. (personally I would like permadeath but I know that will never fly)

- No levels. Its all skill based within your chosen class. So depending on class some skills will be available and some wont.

- The players ARE the leaders in this game. Basically the entire game works on a PVP ladder type system depending on your class. The basic premise is as that as you successfully complete tasks you rise in rank/reputation. For a Union Soldier their ultimate goal would be to obtain the rank of General in which case they are leading actual armies of players in battle against their Confederate counterpart, and you are taking orders directly from the Secretary of War or the President himself (either NPC or in game GM). To further illustrate...

1. You roll up a Confederate Soldier.
2. You are assigned to a unit and garrison.
3. You report to the NPC sargeant in the garrison who gives you missions to do. (Participate in a battle, guard a supply train, etc etc.)
4. You are eventually promoted to SGT and at this point start taking missions from the NPC Captain. Same type missions but some of these might include gathering a squad of Private rank players to perform.
5. You are eventually promoted to Captain. Now you are taking orders from the Colonel. At this point you are completing missions with multiple squads of other players.
6. On and on up the ranks you climb....until you are coordinating huge player armies and seizing Union forts and towns.

Basically a MMO sort of like Planetside but as historically accurate as possible, and where the players themselves become the leaders and decision makers in what course the battle takes. Also the game is dynamic in that territory, forts or towns seized in the war STAY seized unless the other side launches a counter-attack and regains the territory. Seized territories, forts and towns will provide strategic adventages to your side. For example a seized town might have a port which increases trade, or a territory with a gold mine in it. These provide resource advantages such as increased cannons for your army prior to launching a massive attack.

Now I know the first question people will ask is, "what motivation or benefit is there to joining up in a squad or doing what that Captain rank player asks? Or what happens if Im a Captain but cant get any squads?"

Well because there is both solo and group play. At any rank you can undertake solo missions. They help raise your skills and your reputation, but not nearly as much as doing so with in a group.

So if there are 12 or so Privates wandering around, and a Sargeant ranked player gets a new mission then those Private players are going to want to join up with him on his mission for the increased skill, rank and reputation gain. Same as if a Captain, Colonel, General or who ever else logs on and needs players for a mission.

So what do you think?

[Samwise]

Sounds a lot like WWII Online, fourscore years earlier.

[Kail]

So what do you think?

There are a few things that rub me the wrong way about this idea.

-I'm not nuts about historical settings.  They're generally fairly limited (in that you usually don't really get the huge class/race/equipment differences you get when you make up a setting) while at the same time being a minefield of political incorrectness (if you're concerned about that, which you might not be).  I'm assuming you're going for realism, which is another thing I'm uneasy about, since it tends to incorporate game mechanics that are not fun in order to compensate for the inherent difference between a real war and a video game war.

-You listed six classes: Soldier, spy, scout, doctor, quarter master, and guerrilla fighter... but I'm not sure how that would work.  I'm no Civil War buff, but my impression was that 75% of the guys there were using basically the same skills and gear (single shot flint locks, or something, wasn't it?).  It seems like you'd have problems separating out all those guys with rifles; it would stretch credibility a lot to give them special attacks or something wierd like that, and I can't think of much else to do that would make one soldier different from the others.  I'm also not sure how you'd differentiate "spy" from "scout" or "guerilla fighter"; wouldn't they all be stealth classes?  And my (vague) recollection of battlefield medicine in that period was that it was of the "bite this bullet whilst I remove your leg" kind of thing, rather than the "I whack you with a health pack, and now you are back to full health!" kind of thing, which makes doctors seem a bit useless (or at least, not terribly fun to play). 

-Also, why have classes at all if you're not going to have levels?  I could see maybe class balance done Team Fortress style or something, with players being able to switch classes whenever they needed (though the idea of a crafting class doesn't fit well with this model), but otherwise, wouldn't you just have a half-dozen alts?

-For factions, you've got a four way brawl, right?  With one side being Native Americans?  And another being the French?  I strongly suspect that there's going to be some serious imbalance here.

-It seems like the higher levels incorporate forced grouping.  I personally wouldn't like that, though that's a personal call.

-PvP only games seem to have a hard time capturing players for long periods of time.  You've got a bunch of armies fighting over missions and whatnot... but what incentive do players have to keep playing this game for months?  If you're not charging a subscription fee (like Guild Wars) then you can get away with people getting bored with it in a month or two, but if you're planning on charging money, you'll need something to keep them longer than their free trial month.  I can't see a Civil War game where you're running around searching for better armor or guns, so the whole "ph@t l3wtz" model is out.  You've said there are no levels, so that's out too.  It seems like you'd have a hard time finding a reason to log on, or anything to do after you've seen all the missions a few times.

[Sairon]

I don't think the distrubution between ranks will work out. What you'l probably need is like 85% of the playerbase remain mr private meaningless. You simply can't provide enough progression in rank without geting some totaly fucked up conditions, like captains suddenly being mr meaningless.

[pxib]

The Civil War (War Between the States, War of Northern Agression) is a risky subject. Historically accurate character customization probably wouldn't allow female soldiers or much wild variation in skin tone, for example, and there are folks who get  offended just looking at the Confederate flag. In a chits and dice war game, at a degree or two of remove, you theoretically ignore the underlying issues and go tactics and strategy. Play an individual soldier and all sorts of nasty territory could open up. WWII online was wise to focus on the European rather than Pacific theatre, and primarily succeeded (as much as they have) by making war into a cartoon.

I've heard it figured that during the Civil War, a man's weight in ammunition was fired for every man that died. Muskets are reknowned for being slow to reload, but they're innacurate and produce a lot of smoke too. Battlefields were covered with a white haze within minutes. Atmospheric? Yes. Fun? Hmm...

So let's drop historically accurate.

I like the idea of low-tech "modern" warfare simulation as a concept, however. Permadeath would be fine, too, if you're just playing cannon fodder. Make character creation very simple, but make players spend more time inventing families and pre-war professions than they spend deciding their skills. Maybe you don't even give them skills. All characters are "high level" right at the beginning, none more capable than any other. Then just walk them into the meat grinder. Produce a list of character deaths that appears when the game boots. A fine educational MMOG about the the futility of warfare and its cost on soldiers and societies.

I don't think very many people will be willing to pay a monthly fee.

[Murgos]

Sounds a lot like WWII Online, fourscore years earlier.

1941 - 80 = 1861

Whoa, head rush.

[slog]

World War II online, except Less vehicles and weapons.

[Broughden]

So what do you think?

There are a few things that rub me the wrong way about this idea.

-I'm not nuts about historical settings.  They're generally fairly limited (in that you usually don't really get the huge class/race/equipment differences you get when you make up a setting) while at the same time being a minefield of political incorrectness (if you're concerned about that, which you might not be).  I'm assuming you're going for realism, which is another thing I'm uneasy about, since it tends to incorporate game mechanics that are not fun in order to compensate for the inherent difference between a real war and a video game war.

Well to a limited extent the PCism would concern me, especially dealing with slavery issue. But at the sametime I would want the realism and bloodiness of actual war. Yes there is going to be some "imbalance" ie if a cannon ball comes skipping across the battle field and you are in its path chances are you will end up dead unless you have quick reflexes.

-You listed six classes: Soldier, spy, scout, doctor, quarter master, and guerrilla fighter... but I'm not sure how that would work.  I'm no Civil War buff, but my impression was that 75% of the guys there were using basically the same skills and gear (single shot flint locks, or something, wasn't it?).  It seems like you'd have problems separating out all those guys with rifles; it would stretch credibility a lot to give them special attacks or something wierd like that, and I can't think of much else to do that would make one soldier different from the others.  I'm also not sure how you'd differentiate "spy" from "scout" or "guerilla fighter"; wouldn't they all be stealth classes?  And my (vague) recollection of battlefield medicine in that period was that it was of the "bite this bullet whilst I remove your leg" kind of thing, rather than the "I whack you with a health pack, and now you are back to full health!" kind of thing, which makes doctors seem a bit useless (or at least, not terribly fun to play). 

Well our preliminary ideas...were just that...throwing around classes as they came to us. So no, not all that were listed would work out. Some of the thoughts though beind the classes were: Soldier-basic grunt, can raise skills in rifles, horsemanship, artillery, etc etc; Spy- Can actually travel through enemy terrirtories and with high enough skill is not detectable as an enemy by other players, limited sabotauge abilities; Doctor- People shot might not die from their wound but instead would have debuffs (movement, vision, etc) or DOTs(dmg over time) from continued bleeding and the doctor could fix all of these; Quarter Master- Crafting class which uses his factions strategic resources to produce items as his skill increases (artillery, slightly better rifles, medical kits for doctors, etc); Guerilla Fighter- as his skill increases he becomes as expert at camoflauge, horsemanship, and sabotauge (destroying enemy resources, buildings, artillery, etc)

-Also, why have classes at all if you're not going to have levels?  I could see maybe class balance done Team Fortress style or something, with players being able to switch classes whenever they needed (though the idea of a crafting class doesn't fit well with this model), but otherwise, wouldn't you just have a half-dozen alts?

To differentiate skill sets. Yes, players could have multiple alts. It would be especially useful if one has a character currently on death time out.

-For factions, you've got a four way brawl, right?  With one side being Native Americans?  And another being the French?  I strongly suspect that there's going to be some serious imbalance here.

Thats something we were thinking about. How to ensure that the number of players per each side on a server are balanced in order to balance the challenge for everyone. Having the servers assign you based on which faction you choose was one idea. For example you choose Indian as your faction, then the game assigns you to a server that is currently in need of more Indian players. The problem then would be how do you ensure that players can play on the same server as their friends. Its something that would have to be looked at.

-It seems like the higher levels incorporate forced grouping.  I personally wouldn't like that, though that's a personal call.

Well as I said there would be solo missions available at all levels, but you are right...the entire game is centered on group PVP play. Some would like it, some wouldnt.

-PvP only games seem to have a hard time capturing players for long periods of time.  You've got a bunch of armies fighting over missions and whatnot... but what incentive do players have to keep playing this game for months?  If you're not charging a subscription fee (like Guild Wars) then you can get away with people getting bored with it in a month or two, but if you're planning on charging money, you'll need something to keep them longer than their free trial month.  I can't see a Civil War game where you're running around searching for better armor or guns, so the whole "ph@t l3wtz" model is out.  You've said there are no levels, so that's out too.  It seems like you'd have a hard time finding a reason to log on, or anything to do after you've seen all the missions a few times.

Whats to get them to keep playing? Increasing their skills; Increasing their rank; Winning the war! Yes the war would be winnable (after months of time if balance is done right).

[Broughden]

Make character creation very simple, but make players spend more time inventing families and pre-war professions than they spend deciding their skills.  Then just walk them into the meat grinder. Produce a list of character deaths that appears when the game boots. A fine educational MMOG about the the futility of warfare and its cost on soldiers and societies.

Yes, and we could add unicorns and rainbows! And once all the players realized war was fruitless they would sit together holding hands and sing while eating sugary gumdrops in fields of flowers!

All you need is love!

[Broughden]

I don't think the distrubution between ranks will work out. What you'l probably need is like 85% of the playerbase remain mr private meaningless. You simply can't provide enough progression in rank without geting some totaly fucked up conditions, like captains suddenly being mr meaningless.

Yeah. But thats why rank progression would work something like a PVP ladder. Everyone on your faction is fighting the "enemy" but they are also racing each other to complete missions in order to out rank each other. Yes, if you dont keep up then you can get demoted. For example- You make the rank of colonel, and then dont log in for a month. When you come back chances are you might only be a sergeant since everyone else will have been increasing their points through missions.

[tazelbain]

I just don't think simulation is fun for most people

LOL. People bitch and moan when they can't run with superhuman speed and endurance.

I like to see a virtual civil war game, but that's purely from an arm-chair game designer perspective.  I wouldn't actually want to "play" it.

EDIT: Sorry. Work called and I did a hasty submit.

[Sairon]

I don't think the distrubution between ranks will work out. What you'l probably need is like 85% of the playerbase remain mr private meaningless. You simply can't provide enough progression in rank without geting some totaly fucked up conditions, like captains suddenly being mr meaningless.

Yeah. But thats why rank progression would work something like a PVP ladder. Everyone on your faction is fighting the "enemy" but they are also racing each other to complete missions in order to out rank each other. Yes, if you dont keep up then you can get demoted. For example- You make the rank of colonel, and then dont log in for a month. When you come back chances are you might only be a sergeant since everyone else will have been increasing their points through missions.

As in WoW in other words.

I'd rather have guilds, but call them platoons or something instead. Then the GM would be whatever rank within the army which usually orders platoons around. Then let the leveling be on a per guild basis instead, when you complete a mission your guild earns experience. Then let perhaps the GMs of the best guilds on the servers be General or whatever, which would grant some extra controll ( perhaps a general would be able to coordinate the guilds on his side ).

[Nebu]

I think something like BF1861 might be more successful for this type of project.  With a scenario and a campaign mode, I'd certainly buy it.

[WayAbvPar]

I think something like BF1861 might be more successful for this type of project.  With a scenario and a campaign mode, I'd certainly buy it.

That might be a hell of a lot of fun. Actually, BF through the ages would be interesting if they could balance things right.

[Viin]

Well they have the futuristic one coming out soon, now they just need one from early history (roman or something) and then one for the Revolutionary War (preferred over the civil war in my mind). Or the French/Indian war..

Those last two would probably be easier since they involved guns and crap, unlike the Roman stuff which is just swords and spears and bows for the most part.

[Krakrok]

Planetside French/Indian War w/ an AI playing metachess on top of the player battles would rock. Theoretically, you could do a BF version with a total conversion of Savage (or Savage 2).

I'd prefer French/Indian War (FIW) over the Civil War period because the Civil War was a giant cluster fuck and the FIW lends itself to more guerilla warfare.

[Strazos]

The Civil War is kind of boring on a micro level....it's the Macro level movements that are interesting, either on a battlefield-wide level (such as Pickett's Charge...that damn fence), or a warzone wide thing (Sherman cutting through the south like a chainsaw through butter).

But on a personal level? Pfft, you just stood in line and shot your run until you either died or someone retreated. If you were lucky you got to sit further back with a cannon, or be a dragoon and chase down runners if you were routing your opponent.

[Llava]

Reminds me of an idea I had a long, long time ago for a Gangs of New York MMO.

Though I don't think I had classes.  Just a "boy, it would be cool to wear a top hat and chop a guy's hand off" idea.

[WindupAtheist]

Gangs of New York Online would be the bomb.  A Civil War FPS?  Not so much.  Standing around reloading your musket would blow, for starters.

[Nebu]

Gangs of New York Online would be the bomb.  A Civil War FPS?  Not so much.  Standing around reloading your musket would blow, for starters.

TK'ing to get control of the Gatling gun.  I can see it now.

[RyosukeFC3]

Sounds like a decent game, but if you were to aim for realism, would you have to stand within 30 feet of someone to hit them with a bullet?

[JoeTF]

Yeah, the setting blows.
Personally, I would like to make a mmorpg based on modern pirates, and mercenaries, and navies (not the US one). Not only basic premise is actually way more fun (sailing the wide seas, seizing/sinking whatever comes on the radar), but allows us to do neat trick with setting up combat scenarios (seas are huuuuge and speedboats are small - you can set the encounters anyhow you want, without breaking immersion). It would also include neatly integrated permadeath and squad combat.
Unfortunately, making it all reality would cost ~100M$ in code alone. Well made mmorpg simply doesn't have a place in the market, as it stands now.

[Mumbles]

I can understand how Golden Age pirates are romanticized, but modern ones? I don't really see the appeal of boarding some yacht and murdering a family with a machete. The best you could hope for is GTA-lite on the ocean, but that wouldn't make a very good MMO at all.

I have to agree with everyone else that a Civil War setting just blows. I liked your mythological Ireland idea better. Combining history and mythology could end up being very interesting. Mythology/History says that around the first century the four kings of Ireland rose up and killed the High King, forcing his pregnant wife to flee to Roman-occupied Britain. The story goes that she gave birth to a son who returned to Ireland about 20 years later, smacked his father's killers around a bit and assumed the throne. Now there's recent evidence to support the theory that Agricola, the governor of Britain, supported this exiled heir's return to Ireland, and even sent some Roman soldiers to help out.

Romans + relatively unfamiliar mythological creatures and weapons = my recipe for success. I guess I just find this sort of thing far more fascinating than elves and orcs and shit like that. I'm still upset over the cancellation of that Funcom viking MMOG.

[Nebu]

Romans + relatively unfamiliar mythological creatures and weapons = my recipe for success. I guess I just find this sort of thing far more fascinating than elves and orcs and shit like that. I'm still upset over the cancellation of that Funcom viking MMOG.

Better yet... what about Romans... and... putting them in... er... SPACE!  That has moneyhat written all over it!   

[Righ]

If you want to catch the pop wave of the moment, you want Romans in MySpace.

[JoeTF]

I can understand how Golden Age pirates are romanticized, but modern ones? I don't really see the appeal of boarding some yacht and murdering a family with a machete. The best you could hope for is GTA-lite on the ocean, but that wouldn't make a very good MMO at all.

I wasn't thinking Carraibean, but more in lines of Middle and Far East. If a family would sail there, people on board should be slaughtered for their stupidity.
I would base it on conflict between merceneries, pirates and a navy, with actual pirating being in more in the background.
I'm no fan of history and since live on different continent I don't give a crap about Civil War. Nor I don't see a way it could work (what?! killing 35436246432256532 grizzly bears to get leveled enough to use quad muskets?:P)
Why modern pirates?
I'm sick of fantasy and or hard-SF settings - I want something modern. Modern piracy is the only setting which provides enough freedom and shooting. I mean, 50 years ago entire place was one big FFA and even now there are areas where you woudn't want sail without a destroyer or two. Every other setting either doesn't provide enough opportunities to fire your guns or is highly restrictive or totally sick (Iraq mmorpg).       

[Righ]

By a modern piracy setting, do you mean downloading MP3s?

[schild]

Lol.

[JoeTF]

fighting evil MPAA lawyer drones?
Naaah...

[Daeven]

Planetside French/Indian War w/ an AI playing metachess on top of the player battles would rock. Theoretically, you could do a BF version with a total conversion of Savage (or Savage 2).

I'd prefer French/Indian War (FIW) over the Civil War period because the Civil War was a giant cluster fuck and the FIW lends itself to more guerilla warfare.

Seconded. Plus the bad guys are the French. Score!

[eldaec]

If someone were to do this, the way to do it would be as a total war mmog.

You play a general. You have units - typically 3-5 units per player in each battle chosen from 5-8 that a player might have available, plus 3-5 entourage units that craft/heal/whatever off the battlefield. Experience/levels gets a greater range of units to choose from, and more 'points' to buy units. Individual units also gain exp granting them a mixture of better stats, fluff abilities, battlefield abilities, and off-field abilities (crafting/healing/supply-lines/travel-speed), they also take casulaties in the form of deaths which reduce the size of the unit, and wounds, which require healing by the entourage. Units can be restocked over time at appropriate locations, or merged with other units, at the cost of watering down the uinit's exp level.

Groups of multiple generals form an army, armies are matched on a points basis to face off against NPC armies, or against other player armies on points-range-limited battlefields. Winning particular battlefields opens up resources that your entourage units can use to do whatever they do (mines or forests provide resources for crafting, healers stashed at temples cause your guys to recover quicker, whatever, certain types of fort might be used to buy special unit types).Take the enemy capital and a certain % of the land and your side wins, medals all round before the map is redrawn.
 

[Broughden]

If someone were to do this, the way to do it would be as a total war mmog.

You play a general. You have units - typically 3-5 units per player in each battle chosen from 5-8 that a player might have available, plus 3-5 entourage units that craft/heal/whatever off the battlefield. Experience/levels gets a greater range of units to choose from, and more 'points' to buy units. Individual units also gain exp granting them a mixture of better stats, fluff abilities, battlefield abilities, and off-field abilities (crafting/healing/supply-lines/travel-speed), they also take casulaties in the form of deaths which reduce the size of the unit, and wounds, which require healing by the entourage. Units can be restocked over time at appropriate locations, or merged with other units, at the cost of watering down the uinit's exp level.

Groups of multiple generals form an army, armies are matched on a points basis to face off against NPC armies, or against other player armies on points-range-limited battlefields. Winning particular battlefields opens up resources that your entourage units can use to do whatever they do (mines or forests provide resources for crafting, healers stashed at temples cause your guys to recover quicker, whatever, certain types of fort might be used to buy special unit types).Take the enemy capital and a certain % of the land and your side wins, medals all round before the map is redrawn.
 

That idea I like! Good one Eldaec!

[Pococurante]

Necro on the field!

The idea I've been throwing around for a "serious games" genre historical simulation is such battles are instanced and populated mostly by NPCs.  The human players simply slip into their role in the milieu.

But I'm not targeting the unwashed masses.  Products that do by definition are simply going to have to LCD their implementation.

[Krakrok]

It's called Star Wars Battlefront 1 and 2.

[sinij]

-PVP is every where all the time. You are at war...duh.
-Harsh death penalty.

I highlighted your major design flaw. Unless you are trying to make BSM mmorpg, for masochist and sadist everywhere, stay away from death penalty in PvP game. Not to say that death should not be meaningful, just not punishing.

How about we separate player advancement - abilities and stats. As you advance you learn new abilities, be it spells, powers, feats or whatever. These are your combat/crafting/whatever options, more you know more you can do. As you survive for period of time you gain stats - you become faster, smarter, stronger and more resilient but things like wounds, crippling injuries affect you negatively

Every time you die your stats reset to baseline but you get to keep all your abilities.