Campaigns

[Tom]

I've got something on my mind I wanted to share:

Campaigns

or, in a more technical term, ArmyGroups. Basically, that's all that a Campaign is: A group of armies and a shared purpose (i.e. a text field). The cool thing is that it can have armies from several realms. And people within any of those armies could message everyone in the campaign, with scout reports, or orders.

The idea here is that I'm thinking about removing the various "allies in this region", etc. messaging options and replacing them by this. A method to organize armies on a campaign, instead of all the undirected chatter.

Also, giving campaigns a purpose might be a step towards having wars with a goal, instead of "let's kill you".

[Anaris]

The idea here is that I'm thinking about removing the various "allies in this region", etc. messaging options and replacing them by this.

Please STOP thinking about this. It's a terrible idea, for many reasons.

Just because it'll make the message system a little purer ideologically is not a good reason to do it.

If you remove those messaging options, you will have a huge player revolt on your hands.

[Solari]

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES.

Can Generals be the ones responsible for making these army-level assignments?  This would've been a game changer in the last invasion. Also, options to message all generals and all marshals assigned to the ArmyGroups?

I'm not wading into the debate about streamlining the message system options, because I don't agree with the premise nor see how it's related to this proposal, but as an organizational tool for Generals and to allow for more fun, I think this is a good idea.

[Tom]

No, Tim, it is not for coding reasons.

I actually do want to remove those options. For a multitude of reasons. One is to give more strength to proper organisations, which is why I want to replace them with army messaging options. The other is to make a more conscious divide between "us" and "everyone else" by making allies not that much easier to message than enemies.

I don't think there will be a player revolt simply because of this one option disappearing. In face, if you are so certain, I'm willing to disable it in the current code for a week and see what the reaction is.

[Anaris]

No, Tim, it is not for coding reasons.

I actually do want to remove those options. For a multitude of reasons. One is to give more strength to proper organisations, which is why I want to replace them with army messaging options. The other is to make a more conscious divide between "us" and "everyone else" by making allies not that much easier to message than enemies.

I don't think there will be a player revolt simply because of this one option disappearing. In face, if you are so certain, I'm willing to disable it in the current code for a week and see what the reaction is.

Wait: Before you were talking about removing all the "in region" messaging options. Is this different?

Please be specific, Tom.

[Tom]

Can Generals be the ones responsible for making these army-level assignments?  This would've been a game changer in the last invasion. Also, options to message all generals and all marshals assigned to the ArmyGroups?

Yes, the care and feeding of campaigns would be in the hand of generals. And yes, there would be an option to message all marshals in the campaign as well as all the generals of the realms invited to the campaign.

Basically, one realm general would start a campaign and invite other realms in. Once a realm has been invited to a campaign, they can assign armies to it, or not, as they see fit.

[Tom]

Wait: Before you were talking about removing all the "in region" messaging options. Is this different?

Please be specific, Tom.

I was never talking about removing all local messaging options. Never. In a different thread I was talking about replacing them with a variety of options. Much is still in the design phase, but let me make one thing absolutely clear: There will always be at the very least a "message everyone in my current location" option. And almost certainly others based on your current location.

[Anaris]

I was never talking about removing all local messaging options. Never. In a different thread I was talking about replacing them with a variety of options. Much is still in the design phase, but let me make one thing absolutely clear: There will always be at the very least a "message everyone in my current location" option. And almost certainly others based on your current location.

You were, at the very least, talking about replacing the "message all in region" options with a "post a message to the local signboard, that will stay there for a while" option, because the former messed with your notion of a perfect conversation system.

If you're only talking here about replacing the "all allies in region" part with this campaign-messaging system, then I fully support it. It's the kind of cross-realm military coordination system we've needed for years.

[vonGenf]

So basically, it would be a guild were you don't have to travel at a guildhouse to join, and Generals assign you to them at their leisure?

I'm trying to consider how this would have been used in the BT invasion, for example, and I can't see how it could not have degenerated into a single campaign with everyone in it. You've basically replaced the realm-wide channels by an island-wide channel.

On other islands, you may get 2 or 3 groups, but that still will re-inforce immensely the groupthink. This will make powerblocs stronger (as if they weren't strong enough) and diminish the realm-as-a-team spirit.

I think, however, that some options could be valid. Scout report sharing, for example, or easier communication between marshals, or maybe cross-realm standing orders. But a full message channel does not seem such a good idea to me.

[Tom]

So basically, it would be a guild were you don't have to travel at a guildhouse to join, and Generals assign you to them at their leisure?

Uh, no. It would have nothing in common with a guild. No member ranks, no guildhouses, nothing that makes up a guild.

I'm trying to consider how this would have been used in the BT invasion, for example

That's not really typical of the BM experience, so it's not a very good example. And I don't think there would've been one campaign. Would have resulted in way too much noise.

[Tom]

You were, at the very least, talking about replacing the "message all in region" options with a "post a message to the local signboard, that will stay there for a while" option, because the former messed with your notion of a perfect conversation system.

Yes, and that's still coming. But as an additional option. There will be one channel that sticks around and one that doesn't (i.e. works like the one we currently have).

[Indirik]

Campaigns sound interesting. Will they be tied to diplomacy, or will they have an effect on the way forces line up on the battlefield?

Will there be a limit to how many campaigns you can join? I can almost see this being used as a way to build an "all federation" message channel for groups like the Lurians or the Veinsormoot, or possibly even Sanguis Astroism.

Would the "sponsor" of the campaign be able to kick out member realsm/armies? Or would you have to dissolve the campaign and start a new one?

[Tom]

It will be very cool. I'm working on an implementation right now, but it will come together with the new message system.

[Ehndras]

This is great for eliminating the super-annoying communication issues when fighting in groups or giving orders to various armies at once. LOVE IT.

[Norrel]

Also, giving campaigns a purpose might be a step towards having wars with a goal, instead of "let's kill you".

Maybe, in order to do this, have campaigns have stated objectives? The general that creates it has to name a county/duchy/realm to attack, and receives bonuses to attacking those locations. County-specific objectives would have very large bonuses and realm-specific objectives would have much smaller ones. Defensive campaigns could do the same thing. In order to balance this you'd obviously need to make campaign objectives public.

In order to prevent people from just switching the objective of a campaign, maybe make it so that a general has to close a campaign, wait some period of time, and form a new campaign at his capital in order for objectives to switch?