I'm making a meta-game based around Napoleonic Wars. Who's interested?

[GoldenEagle]

Bro, not to destroy you'r dreams, but this is Napoleonic wars  It isn't like the other communities you have seen. You proably will fail unless you are god of organization, but you have my full support and I wish you best of luck!

[psmith]

Tartantyco - I'm interested.  I'll send you a PM with my contact info.

Also, here's a post I made about this very topic in the BCoF forum:  https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=2604.msg74614#msg74614

[Tartantyco]

A sub-reddit has been set up on Reddit for organization, feel free to join and discuss there.

I will still be active here, as well.

[Kator Viridian]

Kator, the numbers you just threw out are nonsense. For battles you can have 20-30 people on each side, and that's just people available at that time. Multiply that by factions and various administrative positions the number is quite a bit bigger than "25".

Take it from the perspective of a Regimental leader. Focusing on a complicated campaign can reduce their attention span by tenfold, and will cripple your campaign. I did that with a thread previously on taleworlds - I've remastered and simplified my campaign to a risk style campaign with 2 teams of 100, to make it easy to manage. After 2 teams you're just sticking your neck into a whole wide clusterfuck.

Tartantyco ... your barely involving 200 (6 factions with 30 people a side = 180) people, Saturday linebattle involves 700+ in 1 day, this is how little of the community you will be attempting to reach out to.

The Very first one that I went to organised by moogs supported far more than 200 people, if lasted a good month or 2 before flopping and it only involved 2 factions without over complication at all. Infact I think there was actually a victor to that campaign.

Seriously when it comes to it organising a line battle per week would be far more popular and successful than attempting a campaign.

[psmith]

Stay the course.  In history, many, many great things occurred in spite of everyone around the person responsible telling them, "you'll never do it".

[Tartantyco]

Kator, stop being an idiot.

First off, a line battle is a singular event that requires no continuity. Second, your calculations about player numbers are consistently nonsensical. Try putting a modicum of thought into your posts. Third, where did you get the idea that I'm trying, or even want, to include a substantial portion of the community? I am trying to get enough people involved, that's the only goal right now.

Now, if you want to participate in this project then stick around. If you want to provide some feedback or ideas then share them. But if all you're going to do is show off your horrible math skills then please just spare us.

[MrRiv]

Please explain a bit further what you have in mind. 

[Kator Viridian]

Kator, stop being an idiot.

First off, a line battle is a singular event that requires no continuity. Second, your calculations about player numbers are consistently nonsensical. Try putting a modicum of thought into your posts. Third, where did you get the idea that I'm trying, or even want, to include a substantial portion of the community? I am trying to get enough people involved, that's the only goal right now.

Now, if you want to participate in this project then stick around. If you want to provide some feedback or ideas then share them. But if all you're going to do is show off your horrible math skills then please just spare us.

"No Continuity"

Yep if the LB's don't happen week after week I don't know what continuity is

The thing is your handling of bad feedback is terrible, your idea is an attempt at a game already made ... its called Total War, you even acknowledged that at the begining, I've seen pretty much every attempt at a campaign fail miserably but feel free to ignore that part but WHEN not IF it happens i'll come back and say "Good Job".

Maybe you will succeed but gaining the amount of people equal to the lowest populated event is going to be an uphill struggle for you, and I would doubt making many new friends along the way.

[Tartantyco]

That's consistency, Kator. Not continuity. Continuity means the results of the previous event affect the situation of the next event. It is quite evident that you have no comprehension of what I'm talking about, so I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

MrRiv: Essentially, we'll be making a "board game" campaign with the five factions from Napoleonic Wars being played by self-organized groups of players in a bid to control Europe. The campaign map will be based on 1800 Europe, but will not be historically accurate as all factions should be somewhat equalized in territory and initial economy. Strategic, logistical, economic, and diplomatic events will be played out on the campaign map and when battles arise between factions these will be simulated using NW based on the situation on the campaign map.

If it's a siege then a siege map will be used and if it's a battle then any number of maps based on terrain and such will be chosen. The Commander Battle game mode will be used and armies on the battlefield will be proportional to the ones on the campaign map. So, if there's 10,000 vs. 6,000 then that can translate to something like 100 vs. 60 or 200 vs. 120 on the battle map, based on the players available to fight for each faction and factional preferred unit sizes. Army composition, as in infantry, cavalry, and artillery, will also translate proportionally.

Time will likely pass psuedo-realtime with a day or two being one turn and all factions moving simultaneously. Time will pause for battles, but other than that faction orders are carried out continuously.

The campaign will focus a lot on emergent mechanisms. Factions will have a few rules set, but mainly they will self-organize and it is up to the players in each faction to keep things going. This means schisms within factions may result in civil war for them, players themselves will be required to establish the ruling hierarchy and decide on a method of rule, be it democracy or dictatorship. Game admins will only accept majority supported orders or individual orders relating to a players own holdings(Be they territorial, military, or otherwise).

We're currently just in the starting phase of making the various rulesets for the economy, logistics, recruitment, etc.

[Kator Viridian]

That's consistency, Kator. Not continuity. Continuity means the results of the previous event affect the situation of the next event. It is quite evident that you have no comprehension of what I'm talking about, so I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

MrRiv: Essentially, we'll be making a "board game" campaign with the five factions from Napoleonic Wars being played by self-organized groups of players in a bid to control Europe. The campaign map will be based on 1800 Europe, but will not be historically accurate as all factions should be somewhat equalized in territory and initial economy. Strategic, logistical, economic, and diplomatic events will be played out on the campaign map and when battles arise between factions these will be simulated using NW based on the situation on the campaign map.

If it's a siege then a siege map will be used and if it's a battle then any number of maps based on terrain and such will be chosen. The Commander Battle game mode will be used and armies on the battlefield will be proportional to the ones on the campaign map. So, if there's 10,000 vs. 6,000 then that can translate to something like 100 vs. 60 or 200 vs. 120 on the battle map, based on the players available to fight for each faction and factional preferred unit sizes. Army composition, as in infantry, cavalry, and artillery, will also translate proportionally.

Time will likely pass psuedo-realtime with a day or two being one turn and all factions moving simultaneously. Time will pause for battles, but other than that faction orders are carried out continuously.

The campaign will focus a lot on emergent mechanisms. Factions will have a few rules set, but mainly they will self-organize and it is up to the players in each faction to keep things going. This means schisms within factions may result in civil war for them, players themselves will be required to establish the ruling hierarchy and decide on a method of rule, be it democracy or dictatorship. Game admins will only accept majority supported orders or individual orders relating to a players own holdings(Be they territorial, military, or otherwise).

We're currently just in the starting phase of making the various rulesets for the economy, logistics, recruitment, etc.

Why not just have the numbers in the Hundreds instead of thousands? the only thing you will appeal to is role playing, which for all puposes is a tiny bit silly, what if a 10,000 man army catches hold of a 100 man regiment? you going to represent that with 100 men against 1?

Also note your ability for server hosting, without a decent server you'll start to struggle over 300 NPC battles, especially with players in that battle.

Remember lag, player numbers and where people are connecting from for their ping, otherwise you'll end up with the marketing let down of WarZ ... test before throwing out numbers your hoping to acheive in a battle.

[Hawkes]

That's consistency, Kator. Not continuity. Continuity means the results of the previous event affect the situation of the next event. It is quite evident that you have no comprehension of what I'm talking about, so I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

MrRiv: Essentially, we'll be making a "board game" campaign with the five factions from Napoleonic Wars being played by self-organized groups of players in a bid to control Europe. The campaign map will be based on 1800 Europe, but will not be historically accurate as all factions should be somewhat equalized in territory and initial economy. Strategic, logistical, economic, and diplomatic events will be played out on the campaign map and when battles arise between factions these will be simulated using NW based on the situation on the campaign map.

If it's a siege then a siege map will be used and if it's a battle then any number of maps based on terrain and such will be chosen. The Commander Battle game mode will be used and armies on the battlefield will be proportional to the ones on the campaign map. So, if there's 10,000 vs. 6,000 then that can translate to something like 100 vs. 60 or 200 vs. 120 on the battle map, based on the players available to fight for each faction and factional preferred unit sizes. Army composition, as in infantry, cavalry, and artillery, will also translate proportionally.

Time will likely pass psuedo-realtime with a day or two being one turn and all factions moving simultaneously. Time will pause for battles, but other than that faction orders are carried out continuously.

The campaign will focus a lot on emergent mechanisms. Factions will have a few rules set, but mainly they will self-organize and it is up to the players in each faction to keep things going. This means schisms within factions may result in civil war for them, players themselves will be required to establish the ruling hierarchy and decide on a method of rule, be it democracy or dictatorship. Game admins will only accept majority supported orders or individual orders relating to a players own holdings(Be they territorial, military, or otherwise).

We're currently just in the starting phase of making the various rulesets for the economy, logistics, recruitment, etc.

Mate. It's been done, you don't have to criticize and slander people for attempts (multiple attempts, including my own attempt) which have failed previously. They're just showing you the consequences and the issues of an event like this, and giving you 'constructive' criticism - before getting way too stubborn over the situation, try put it into practicality instead of sticking only to theory. People are showing you the practical errors of a campaign such as one mentioned, you only rebutt with the theories of your campaign.

- Just try not to act so stubborn and aggressive to people who give you accounts of previous, very similar events. The NW Community is very unique, and cannot be put in comparison with any other community in my personal opinion. Don't go into this blind, that's all. 

[Tartantyco]

Hawkes, no constructive criticism has been provided, Kator has simply consistently misunderstood what is going on. The only examples of previous "attempts" have been completely different from what I'm describing and poorly managed.

It is quite common for people who don't understand something to fear and try to destroy it, and that's what's going on with Kator right now.

As you have tried something similar before Hawkes, maybe you should help out. It may very well fail, but that would only be because of attitudes such as yours. And I'm not just involving the NW community here, I am reaching out to many communities, particularly the teamwork-focused Project Reality community.

So, previous attempts may have failed, but you may have to look to yourself to find the reason for those failures.

[Kator Viridian]

Hawkes, no constructive criticism has been provided, Kator has simply consistently misunderstood what is going on. The only examples of previous "attempts" have been completely different from what I'm describing and poorly managed.

It is quite common for people who don't understand something to fear and try to destroy it, and that's what's going on with Kator right now.

As you have tried something similar before Hawkes, maybe you should help out. It may very well fail, but that would only be because of attitudes such as yours. And I'm not just involving the NW community here, I am reaching out to many communities, particularly the teamwork-focused Project Reality community.

So, previous attempts may have failed, but you may have to look to yourself to find the reason for those failures.

Holy Hell dude, Seriously if Hawkes is the original Hawkes I remember back from before MM then he has enough experiance to tell you what will and will not work.

As Do I, for example:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,247577.msg5920074.html#msg5920074

Didn't even get its feet off the ground, there was also another one with entirely similar ideas to yours, with a website and all. Even the first campaign had its own website for contacts and the likes.

There have been many attempts to have "Commander battles" with campaigns but were so over complicated that the person running them couldn't even keep up let alone find a server suitable enough for the size of battles he was wanting or thought he could have.

Having the arrogance to say "Just because you condemn me dosn't mean I won't succeed", nt its because we KNOW you won't succeed, there have been many better, smarter and well thought out groups of people who have not succeeded before you, the only reason why Geniuses in the past have even got to where they did is because they stumbled upon their answers they hardly discovered them or made them.

You lack many things:

Contacts,
Server,
Website suitable enough,
Too big ideas to actualise,
No set out rules for your campaign in the first place.

You probably won't have a campaign for what? 2-3 months becasue even by now all the rule sets you need should only take you about a day to write down and think about, your slower than the people who failed, you just won't cut it for what you want ... I can just tell.

[Tartantyco]

You are seriously just showing how little you understand, Kator. You're actually saying I should rush the rules just like everybody else who FAILED. And you are still making false assumptions about the organizational structure I am establishing.

[psmith]

May I suggest we stop fanning the flames?  It's an unproductive distraction.  I see cRPG's Strategus as a nice model to follow.  It is actually more complicated than what is proposed here since the battle sizes include 50 vs 50 players with battles occurring at all times of the day and night.  Also the # of factions is unlimited; the best and most organized are able to capture and hold castles, towns, and fiefs with the smallest factions usually joining in the fun as mercenaries.

I must admit, I'm ignorant of other attempts to do something like this with NW, however Tartantyco has produced a bare-bones blue print on the sub-reddit, and I look forward to a first meeting of the minds.

My natural inclination is to limit participation early on in order to have a small, committed team of like-minded folk working productively as quickly as possible.  Then as more input or feedback is needed, throw it to the community in bite-sized chunks. 

If I read into the "warning" comments, people don't want to get their hopes up just to be dashed again.  I completely understand this.  Tarttantyco, let's setup a TS meeting as soon as possible (this afternoon/evening perhaps?) so we can start swapping ideas and put together a basic schematic and work plan.  I also would rather see productive discussion happen in a more private/semi-private manner so every idea or suggestion doesn't suffer public scrutiny prematurely.