Zoned-Based Campaign Intro
From TargetWiki
I described for sick what I wanted a TR campaign to be like. Here is how I described it:
Player logs in. Player chooses side (or is logged in as his normal side, whatever) Player checks map, and sees overall map, with colors denoting who owns what territory (not fields, territory). Player checks theatre summary of action from previous day(s) to catch up with what he missed while offline.
- player reads AI-generated status report, with today's (game day, not RL day) overall objectives.
Player checks mission board. Several missions have already been posted. Player selects a mission and joins it in progress. He is put in airplane at field specified by mission, with bomb load/skin speficied by mission. takes off, warps to target (depending on mission), returns home/dies. -OR- Player decides none of those missions are for him, and creates his own mission, posts it on the mission board. Waits for enough players to join it, and leads mission. After x amount of time, the round is announced as coming to an end. (several hours at least). players return home, all mission creation/takeoffs are closed. When scoring is closed, AI counts up player actions in support of the overall strat objectives of the AI for that round. Ai also counts up player deaths / ditches / lost planes, modifies damage done by some suitable amount. AI then adds player damage done to the attacking side (in specific locations, not to the side overall), and resolves combat according to ground/naval force strengths. Ground forces advance/retreat as result of combat, and optionally, are weakened by damage. (could we just abstract that? to me, territory is everything in PTO, and players want to see how their actions affect territory capture, not necessarily how many Mk 27L tanks were damaged.) --- Next round begins Strat AI decides on each side's objectives for new round. Strat AI decides what to spend available strat points on (more battleships, more tanks, more transports, more troops, newer plane tech, etc.) reinforcement schedule puts new forces, if available, into theatre at drop off points. movement phase: both sides move reinforcements and optionally, forces in field into new positions in support of their objectives.
- status boards are updated for each team by the AI, giving players idea of what objectives are for this round.
- AI creates a few basic missions for players to join (point defense at points under attack, ground attack in support of landign force, etc.)
Mission creation is enabled again, and take off is enabled again. Players resume action, and action continues round by round until one side meets its strategic targets set at start of campaign (by hu-mans. for example: Allied side must take solomons + hold 85% of New GUinea by Feb 44, Japan side must restrict US to gaudalcanal, and/or take port moresby, and/or take gaudalcanal. more thought needed here, I just whipped those up).
- denotes optional items, or items for which I'm not sure it's a good idea.
Here is the campaign sick designed for us
The campaign map is divided into areas (like Axis & Allies) rather than hexes. An area is a 'contested' area if its adjacent to an enemy controlled area. That means a 'front' will be two areas wide - a 'contested' area for each side.
Areas are assigned a 'damage capacity'. An area that takes damage equal to its capacity and is also contested is captured by the enemy side. When an area is captured, its damage capacity is reset, meaning a full effort is required to recapture it. The damage an area has taken 'heals' at a constant rate.
Contested areas have 'tactical' targets (tanks, trucks, huts, tents, flak, etc.); destroying these scores against the area's damage capacity, and also causes new tactical targets to spawn in the area. Unconstested areas have no tactical targets. An area generates a number of tactical targets at a time based on its damage capacity - the higher the capacity, the more targets are available at a time. The ratio of damage capacity to tactical targets is a constant for all areas.
Uncontested areas that are adjacent to contested areas have 'logistical' targets (truck convoys, trains, railyards, bridges, etc.); these are spawned along specified supply routes (roads, railroads, etc.) or in fixed locations (for yards, bridges, etc.) in proportion to the damage capacity of the area. Destroying these causes damage to the area, but also causes the same amount of damage to every contested area adjacent to that area. If an area has no specified supply routes or fixed targets, there is no way to inflict logistical damage on it. The ratio of spawn rate for logistical targets to damage capacity is a constant for all areas.
yak note: The damage to neighboring areas is simulation of not being able to resupply those areas because supply routes got disrupted in the one zone.
Areas can also contain 'strategic' targets (factories, warehouses, etc.); these are placed by the campaign designer, and respawn at a constant rate. When an area becomes contested, its strategic targets are destroyed and do not respawn until the area is once again uncontested. Damage done to strategic targets is applied to all contested areas. Not every area will have strategic targets.
yak note: probably almost none of our TR zones have strat targets. Unless maybe transshipment or entry points into the theatre can be considered strat targets.
Optional: cargo missions could be flown to damaged areas to repair them. Each flight would restore a fixed number of damage points.
yak note: TR Dev team feels people will want to do this, so we'll try to add that.
Optional: recon missions could count as inflicting some fraction of damage on a target, since they are simpler to execute but still valuable. This could apply to all types of targets.
yak note: thoughts? I personally like it. simple. effective.
Airfields in contested areas do not operate. Airfields in uncontested areas can be shut down for a period of time by inflicting damage on the airfield, but airfield damage does not apply to an area's damage capacity.
Aircraft availablity would progress on a fixed schedule, using a 'generations' style format. Each airfield would have a specific list of available aircraft based on the side that owns it and the current time period.
Optional: aircraft availability could be tied to battlefield success. In this scheme, each side accumulates a 'progress point' on a regular schedule, but also gets a progress point for losing an area. This provides a negative feedback loop, where the losing side gets new planes quicker.
yak note: we are definitely going to need this, because I personally think Japan is going to be undermanned most of the time. Of course, the opposite could prove to be true, but this should help at least keep one side from always getting squished horribly.
Tactical targets for sea areas could take the form of destroyer flotillas, small combat craft, barges, picket vessels, etc. Transport convoys should be used as logistical targets. Battleship fleets should take the form of moving strategic targets. Carrier groups should be a combination of moving strategic target and airfield.
Optional: to show amphibious invasions, the tactical targets in a contested sea zone could spawn as an invasion fleet heading for an adjacent area when that adjacent area is nearly conquered.
yak note: we definitely want this. once we have the zones decided, we'll need to determine the best/most likely beach for each zone.
Optional: to model rare plane types, or types in advance of the current time period, pilots could accumulate bonus points for successful missions. Points could be awarded for air-to-air kills as well as for ground damage inflicted. A pilot that ditches or bails out in friendly territory should receive no bonus points for the mission. A pilot that ditches or bails out in enemy territory, or is killed, should lose their accumulated stock of bonus points. This combines allowing for rare plane types with encouraging players to fly 'historically'. Rather than spending bonus points, your current level should simply allow you to select rarer planes. Since this is a positive feedback loop, it's vital that a killed or captured pilot be reset to zero to prevent excess.
yak note: oh baby, i love this.
Optional: pilots could also be given medals and ranks for specific accomplishments that have no game effect. People love medals and ranks.
yak note: yeah, i think we should do this too. Do we have any medalsmiths around?
Optional: search and rescue flights for pilots that have ditched or bailed in enemy territory could occur. These should not allow that pilot to recover lost bonus points, however. Instead, they should function as the reverse of strategic damage, repairing all contested areas.
yak note: we definitely want SAR, as previously discussed here. Idea of having team earn value for one person's going out and rescueing pilots is really good, imho. That's that "reason for doing SAR" we kept talking about in the other thread.
9/2/06 update: Couple of additional notes based on things I've worked through while actually writing the code:
- damage done to airfields does not count as tactgical, logistical, or strat damage. If you want to close an airfield, that's your goal. If you want to do strat/logistical/tactical damage, you have to attack something other than an airfield. attacking airfields is solely for supression (in other words, for an immediate tactical advantage of some kind). It does NOT directly help you capture enemy territory.
- damage done to objects does not count as any logistical/tactical/strat points until the object is destroyed. You half-damage a bunch of structures: big deal. finish the job, and you have an impact on the campaign.
- if you blow up a structure, then die on the way home, all the L/S/T points are already awarded. The reward for getting home alive will be a personal one. do a lot of suicide missions, in other words, and don't expect to fly the newest planes or get awards. that sort of thing.
