Civil War: Tactical Simulator(Working title) RTS

#1 I'm new to building 3D models for games but I'd be interested in contributing. Drop me a line if your interested.

Cheers

#2 Thanks. I'll email you a design document by the end of the week.
Do you have MSN Messenger?

#3 I do have MSN. Just enter my the email address.

#4 Anyone have any ideas or feedback about this?

Fun? Commercially viable?

New name ideas?

#5 Apologies if this sounds negative, but where's the hook, so to speak?

From the grognard point of view, Mad Minute Games is already producing excellent historical Civil War tactical RTS games - thus you are unlikely to be able to tap into that niche. Before them, there is the Sid Meier games, which are still quite playable today.

From the plain RTS POV, the American Civil War isn't particularly "exciting", in that the units are essentially the same on both sides, with little variation between them. In addition, I get the impression that the Inf-Cav-Can RTS thing has been done to death in recent years, most notably by the Cossacks series.

I'm sure it can be fun, but since you also asked whether it was commercially, that is the question I would ask: why would anyone want to play this?

Regards,

Michael A.

#6 Make a resurrection of North & South! The best game ever created.
Not much help, but I just had to point that one out ;)

#7 I kind of see your point, Michael. James and I will release a demo soon, so we can get more feedback.

We also have some new ideas to make this different from previous games.

#8 My post probably reads more negative than intended, so please don't let yourself be put off by it. In any case, do post about your demo here, and good luck with it.

#9 North & South was remade in 2000 (http://badgers.timovihola.com/ata.html) as freeware. An updated version was planned, but that project seems to be dead.

#10 Both North and South and the Mad Minute Games one weren't quite Torque quality. I'll think about it.
It's so hard to think of a good RTS idea. Anyone have any?

Medieval seems a little overdone. Maybe a Viking game?(Not at all similar to Tribal Trouble)

Thanks for the feedback.

#11 Cool, why didn't anyone tell me about it?!
Don't let yourself be put off, I'm sure there's more to it... you could do a squad kind of thing maybe.

#12 If you are looking for ideas, then i think i have one. Why dont you make a game about Japanese warfare (yes, the Sengoku-jidai if you know). There were muskets, cannons, yet had samurai with swords, ashigaru with spear, and cavalry with great no-dachi (extremely long sword), not to mention there were many interesting tactics: the famous and feared cavalry charge of the Takeda clan, massive musketeers of the Oda clan, etc. And we can drop some detailed features like morale, skill of general, religion (though it's a bit difficult to have religion in a tactics based RTS). And really the samurai spirit and the large scale of battles those days can be very exciting. Glad if i can be of any help.

#13 Oh and if you dont mind, can you send me a demo of the game you mentioned? I would love to play and give feedback and thoughts to help you improve it.

And about the command tent i think it will help the troop move more smoothly and better or bring more preplanned tactics, both player-made or programmer-made, and when one side get to and destroy another's command tent, the troops of the latter side will be demoralized and tend to retreat.

Infantry shouldnt be armed with gun only but also knife and bayonet for close combat, but such things will hardly be used. In my opinion, in the Civil War, soldiers used rifled barrel guns and not muskets. The diffenrence is rifle provide excellent accuracy compared to musket, resulting in the disappearance of the "massive musketball" tactics. Infantry often moved in line or column formation but most often the open, free formation involving each group deployed in the way they saw fit.

The cavalry no longer played an important role in battle, especially with saber and pistol. In fact, they would be armed with carbine and pistol. The horse was only used as a mean of traffic, making the cavalry a "mobile and flexible foot infantry". Charge in massive size was nearly impossible for the wooded and mountainous terrain and the accuracy of the rifle.

The cannon will take more time to load when firing canister shots than solid shot and can only be used in short range. The solid shot can also cut through the infantry and cavalry formation, breaking their line though doing minor casualties, and this tactic is rarely used in real battles those days . You should consider adding mortar for long range damage on trenches and fortifications. Artillery was used mainly for destroying enemy defense and push back enemy frontal assault.

The most significant event in the Civil War is the appearance of machine gun: the Gatling gun, further disabled the massive charge of infantry/cavalry and made frontal assault result in extremely high casualty. You should study more about this deadly weapon which really changed the art of war.
As for the name, it should be "Tactics Simulator" i think? And how about "Blue vs Red: The only War on US soil"?

I suggest you throw away the "health" thing. Kills should be instant for gun and cannon or it will paralyze the target.

Through your basic features of the game i guess you havent studied carefully the war facts in this Civil War, i suggest you should study about it each time you make a RTS game, especially when it is based on a real war like this one. If you have studied it then sorry for my words.

Thanks for reading my opinion.

#14 Thanks for the feedback and ideas. A Japanese warfare game sounds like it would be fun to do. I'll think about it.

#15 Thanks for your thanks ^_^ because this is almost my first detailed game feedback.
Though im just an amateur, im currently looking for project to contribute and to gain experience. As i see this project is at prototype stage so i guess you dont need to be bothered too much by my feedback. And if you have another project after this, please let me know and help you out. I would be very happy to take part in any project since i have never done it before (see? im an amateur).

#16 You could have those ships as well to add more elements though i think someone else is making a FPS on a civil war base

#17 Lolx i dont think making a FPS with civil war features is a good idea for war those days still depends heavily on large group work and not team work or personal work. What kind of FPS where you stand in a line with your comrades and fire those rifle (and i mean single shot rifle) at the enemy in volleys?
Besides in the Civil war ships were used mainly for transportation and not for battle because at that time ships were only steamers which were as slow as a turtle.

#18 If you did it like English Vs. French/Dutch you could do FPS because the English had camoflague and had diversionery tactics like poking a baonet up with a loaf of bread on it and a their hat on top meaning the enemy would think that they had killed him.
In this way you could make a tactical FPS for the American Civil War 1700-1800.

#19 An FPS would only work (Like Hawkie suggests) if you used small groups and created a skirmish type game. It might be unique using various scenerios in which you command a small skirmish group to attack/defend a local/base. But Niko is really after an RTS approach at this point and I tend to agree with him. Plans are to discuss the game concept come this summer and start brainstorming ideas to see what unique elements can be brought to the table.

Perhaps it can play both as a campaign level war game with "focused" skirmishes where the player commands a small unit - success or failure at this level will affect the entire campaign( I'm seeing the "campaign" level being a large battle or confrontation).

Still lots of ideas to discuss - so keep it coming :)

Quick note to Hawkie: Your estimate of the ships is inaccurate. I grant you, they can't be compared to a fast crusier but they were still effective. How do you think Great Britain "Ruled the Waves" at this time? The Americans were very inventive and artillery (both land and sea based) developed into some very effective and devistating weaponry. Argueably, this was the beginning of the modern warfare.

edit for clarification

#20 Sorry about the inaccuracy of my estimated time, but really i think it will make the battle less tactical if we include large ships in it for it was not very often when the battlefield laid near a sufficient river or channel to let a "battle ship" operate freely. And i havent heard much of the influence of battle ships in the Civil War.
Actually i completely agree with the idea of a RTS as im fond of it. The warfare those days, though modernized a lot, still depends on small scale tactics, the moving and maneuveur of troops (hope i spell it right).

The idea of a campaign level and small skirmishes is quite interesting. While the big battles take place there can be small infiltration and espisonage, to cut enemy's support line or to rob an enemy's convoy for weapons and ammunitions, etc.

The troops may be divided into large divisions, the division in turn may be divided into battallions (man is that right?) with captains and commanders. These officers will be armed with pistols (like the revolver) and sabers (only for commanding). They do not fight very well, but they will keep the army following orders and boost the morale of the soldiers. If they are killed, the battallion or even division under their command will not follow orders properly and will be demoralized (cowards may retreat immidiately).

We can adopt a system of chain command, where the command tent give out orders by signal, the commanders pass the order to the captains in their division who are still in range of hearing (and still standing of course), the captains in turn pass the order to the soldiers in the range of hearing, and the soldier will carry the order. Soldiers or captains who are out of range (maybe they are cut from the whole army and trapped somewhere) will not follow orders. This way you will only have to control the whole division and not every single soldier. We can add something like the power of the voice of the commander and the captains instead of the range of hearing. Of course some orders like retreat or all-out-bayonet charge (which i often call crazy-meat-to-meat tactics) will have special signal that everyone can understand.
Those are some more idea i have come up with, hope they are helpful.