Campaigns

[yman]

Bob, campaign is done through scenarios, and game saving is a GAE feature.

You mean playing random maps? That's not campaign mode, that's what was called in Total Annihilation Skirmish mode. A campaign is where you have a story and the scenarios you play are chapters in the story. It needs to be linear, not random.

Game saving should be a core feature that is implemented in Glest, not left up to some Glest fork.

In general, the expectations from an RTS is to have Campaign mode, Skirmish mode, and multiplayer. Saving and loading games is considered core functionality. I know I certainly expect all of this and am always surprised to find that campaign mode and saving & loading are missing. It simply doesn't make any sense.

Also, one expects to have some variations in the objectives of scenarios in a campaign, so as to break the monotony and better support the story through gameplay.

Other problems with the game are that the tech tree is too simple and small, and the lack of walls and gates. Walls are a standard feature since at least Dune 2 (1992). It's very odd for a modern game not to have them unless there are specific reasons why it isn't suitable.

[Psychedelic_hands]

Bob, campaign is done through scenarios, and game saving is a GAE feature.

You mean playing random maps? That's not campaign mode, that's what was called in Total Annihilation Skirmish mode. A campaign is where you have a story and the scenarios you play are chapters in the story. It needs to be linear, not random.

Game saving should be a core feature that is implemented in Glest, not left up to some Glest fork.

In general, the expectations from an RTS is to have Campaign mode, Skirmish mode, and multiplayer. Saving and loading games is considered core functionality. I know I certainly expect all of this and am always surprised to find that campaign mode and saving & loading are missing. It simply doesn't make any sense.

Also, one expects to have some variations in the objectives of scenarios in a campaign, so as to break the monotony and better support the story through gameplay.

Other problems with the game are that the tech tree is too simple and small, and the lack of walls and gates. Walls are a standard feature since at least Dune 2 (1992). It's very odd for a modern game not to have them unless there are specific reasons why it isn't suitable.

Alright, no offense but you seem to not understand somethings about Glest  .
First of all, Glest, The original Glest isn't developed anymore. The people who worked on it have all gone and are doing their own things. GAE and MG on the other hand are both being developed by members of the community and they are continuing to provide new functionality to Glest.
Also you should lower your standards a bit and realise that this is an Open-source game, made by people in their spare time to have fun. Not some big comerical game with a full-time studio of professionals and a huge budget.
If you think the Tech-tree is too small then go and play  other mods, if you look around the board you will see plenty .

Also Scenarios are very, very capable of producing a story mode. Scenarios are coded in Lua which is a very simple language to learn, anyone could learn it on their own. If you'd like to learn it please go here https://docs.megaglest.org/Lua then you can create your own stories... GAE plans to add support for campaigns in version 0.5 (see http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/glestae/ticket/239). The scenarios are that are bundled with Glest are very basic, if you look at some mods like Apocalyptic Dawn(which hopefully version 3.0 will be released soon) There are much more advanced scenarios.

P.S I think you'll find most modern RTSs don't have walls  .

[ElimiNator]

Here is a mini story mode you can download:
https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=6607.msg67972#msg67972

[yman]

Alright, no offense but you seem to not understand somethings about Glest  .
First of all, Glest, The original Glest isn't developed anymore. The people who worked on it have all gone and are doing their own things. GAE and MG on the other hand are both being developed by members of the community and they are continuing to provide new functionality to Glest.
If you think the Tech-tree is too small then go and play  other mods, if you look around the board you will see plenty .

It's been a while since I even bothered to so much as think about Glest. That's how much I find the shallow gameplay in single-player mode, lack of campaigns, and lack of leading and saving to be disappointing. Without this it's simply not fun for me. That's why I didn't know that Glest is a dead project that is only continued in the form of forks.

Also you should lower your standards a bit and realise that this is an Open-source game, made by people in their spare time to have fun. Not some big comerical game with a full-time studio of professionals and a huge budget.

I'm not asking for a big commercial game, and I know Glest is open-source. It looks like something that has a lot of potential, and yet it's missing what looks to me like core functionality. I want something I can use to make my own story (in the form of a campaign). Glest is far from being there, and so are the forks. These projects all seem to be moving at snail's pace. Perhaps they should focus more on features and less on refinement. Features bring interest and mindshare, which then can translate to more developers, providing the manpower needed for refinement, and ultimately getting everything done faster.

Also Scenarios are very, very capable of producing a story mode. Scenarios are coded in Lua which is a very simple language to learn, anyone could learn it on their own. If you'd like to learn it please go here https://docs.megaglest.org/Lua then you can create your own stories... GAE plans to add support for campaigns in version 0.5 (see http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/glestae/ticket/239). The scenarios are that are bundled with Glest are very basic, if you look at some mods like Apocalyptic Dawn(which hopefully version 3.0 will be released soon) There are much more advanced scenarios.

So a scenario can change objectives, add or remove factions, change team configurations, and completely change all the scenario's content, including the map? Can a scenario use cutscenes, provide mission briefs, etc?

P.S I think you'll find most modern RTSs don't have walls  .

They probably are all placed in modern settings where walls can be taken down with a singe shot. I'm talking about games that take place in the 19th century and earlier. Walls can slow down the pace of the game, giving players who want to focus on the economy aspect more time and opportunity to do so. This helps, considering that in a 1 on 1 one game in Glest the best strategy seems to be to build up an army as quickly as possible and attack as soon as possible. Even if your opponent does the same, you take each other's armies out and remain on equal footing.

[Omega]

Ah, I'm afraid that there's no way to change teams, factions, maps, etc; nor any way to "save" the resources and units in a scenario to pass into another, but there's no reason to believe such features won't appear in the future. Lua can create units, resources, upgrades, make timers, recognize when units enter an area, give units commands such as to attack, create messages and display text, etc. GAE has advanced methods of moving the camera and freezing input to allow cutscenes, as well as the ability to make coloured dialouge messages in the console akin to messages from other players.

if you look at some mods like Apocalyptic Dawn(which hopefully version 3.0 will be released soon) There are much more advanced scenarios.

Apocalyptic Dawn v2.5 (last released version) boasted over 20 scripted scenarios, some as simple as just giving a different style of gameplay (eg, king of the hill requires you to hold a position for 20 minutes), some modifying the starting units to allow games to start with full bases, etc, and the "campaign" of that version, a five scenario story-based campaign called "End of Mourning", where the player leads a betrayed army to discover what happened; even ending with Glest's first and so far only "boss" battle.

Of course, v2.5 was fairly rough, and the planned version 3 has a load of improvements in store...but it's not to be released "soon". In fact, between school, work, sports, and all; I haven't worked on it since, erm, the summer. By no means abandoned, but no time at the moment.


Also, moved this discussion to a new thread.

[Psychedelic_hands]

Of course, v2.5 was fairly rough, and the planned version 3 has a load of improvements in store...but it's not to be released "soon". In fact, between school, work, sports, and all; I haven't worked on it since, erm, the summer. By no means abandoned, but no time at the moment.

Oh, really? I had the impression that it was just waiting 0.4 to come out  .

[Gabbe]

I want campaigns

[Omega]

Et tu, Gabbe? Then again, who doesn't? But I don't see either engine getting any progress until at least the next major releases, as there's quite a few advanced features that would be required for campaigns to be of use.

Off the top of my head, we'd need:
-A way of "remembering" if a unit is dead or not, perhaps simply by keeping a variable that can be passed over to the next scenario (thus, we can check if a certain unit dies in the first scenario, store that as a variable, then pass it into the second scenario, which would use that variable to decide whether or not the unit is alive, which could change dialogue, prevent that unit from being used in the next scenario, etc)
-A way to capture player input
-A way to specify the order of scenarios to be played
-There should be a campaign XML to not only specify the order of the scenarios, but a type; either linear or "unlocking". The former would just require you to beat each individual scenario in order to progress, while the latter would specify which you unlock in the XML, and let you choose between these unlocked scenarios, allowing for "choices". Perhaps there could also be a way to unlock a different scenario if you fail one, instead of just retrying it until you win, such as an easier version of the same thing, or even a totally different scenario following the storyline where you take a different approach to the problem. The possibilities are endless.

Of course, v2.5 was fairly rough, and the planned version 3 has a load of improvements in store...but it's not to be released "soon". In fact, between school, work, sports, and all; I haven't worked on it since, erm, the summer. By no means abandoned, but no time at the moment.

Oh, really? I had the impression that it was just waiting 0.4 to come out  .

I wish. I no longer will wait for engines to come out before releasing a mod though; there's no benefits. And I never wish to release another standalone mod again, too big of a pain in the butt. Instead, I'll just release it and let users who can compile enjoy it, while those who can't will just have to wait for the official release; it's not like they'd be waiting any longer than if I held off, anyway.

[yman]

Et tu, Gabbe? Then again, who doesn't? But I don't see either engine getting any progress until at least the next major releases, as there's quite a few advanced features that would be required for campaigns to be of use.

Off the top of my head, we'd need:
-A way of "remembering" if a unit is dead or not, perhaps simply by keeping a variable that can be passed over to the next scenario (thus, we can check if a certain unit dies in the first scenario, store that as a variable, then pass it into the second scenario, which would use that variable to decide whether or not the unit is alive, which could change dialogue, prevent that unit from being used in the next scenario, etc)
-A way to capture player input
-A way to specify the order of scenarios to be played
-There should be a campaign XML to not only specify the order of the scenarios, but a type; either linear or "unlocking". The former would just require you to beat each individual scenario in order to progress, while the latter would specify which you unlock in the XML, and let you choose between these unlocked scenarios, allowing for "choices". Perhaps there could also be a way to unlock a different scenario if you fail one, instead of just retrying it until you win, such as an easier version of the same thing, or even a totally different scenario following the storyline where you take a different approach to the problem. The possibilities are endless.

You don't actually need all of that just to get some basic campaign functionality that would satisfy immediate needs, and to make campaigns as good as usefully possible, XML might not be powerful enough.

I think that https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=6079.msg77555#msg77555 and the posts following it should be merged into this discussion.

[Omega]

You don't actually need all of that just to get some basic campaign functionality that would satisfy immediate needs, and to make campaigns as good as usefully possible, XML might not be powerful enough.

Scenarios are largely coded in Lua. XML is only used to describe the basic parameters of the scenario, and provide some events.

[yman]

You don't actually need all of that just to get some basic campaign functionality that would satisfy immediate needs, and to make campaigns as good as usefully possible, XML might not be powerful enough.

Scenarios are largely coded in Lua. XML is only used to describe the basic parameters of the scenario, and provide some events.

I was saying that I think campaigns should use Lua, but for now it's enough to do something much simpler, like putting them all in a directory and playing them in alphabetical order.

[Omega]

like putting them all in a directory and playing them in alphabetical order.

That would be way to limited... The first campaign ever released would have its scenarios titled "a-In the Beginning", "b-The Empire Blows Stuff Up", and "c-AAAAAAAA", etc. It's a much smaller leap to specify the order than it is to find a clean way to move from scenario to scenario (there needs to be at least a basic way of these scenarios "interacting" with each other. At the core, a way to pass variables amongst them (a global variable for the campaign?)).

[Oh cool, 5,000^th post.]

[yman]

like putting them all in a directory and playing them in alphabetical order.

That would be way to limited... The first campaign ever released would have its scenarios titled "a-In the Beginning", "b-The Empire Blows Stuff Up", and "c-AAAAAAAA", etc. It's a much smaller leap to specify the order than it is to find a clean way to move from scenario to scenario (there needs to be at least a basic way of these scenarios "interacting" with each other. At the core, a way to pass variables amongst them (a global variable for the campaign?)).

I'm saying that the initial implementation can be super crappy and super basic, just so we'd have something right now. Of course, the goal is to have a super awesome campaign system, but we aren't getting that right away.

[Psychedelic_hands]

like putting them all in a directory and playing them in alphabetical order.

That would be way to limited... The first campaign ever released would have its scenarios titled "a-In the Beginning", "b-The Empire Blows Stuff Up", and "c-AAAAAAAA", etc. It's a much smaller leap to specify the order than it is to find a clean way to move from scenario to scenario (there needs to be at least a basic way of these scenarios "interacting" with each other. At the core, a way to pass variables amongst them (a global variable for the campaign?)).

I'm saying that the initial implementation can be super crappy and super basic, just so we'd have something right now. Of course, the goal is to have a super awesome campaign system, but we aren't getting that right away.

Then why don't you start work on your super awesome campaign now? You could write the scenarios, plan, make maps, models, loading screens, cutscenes. then maybe one of the devs of either fork would see a good reason to implement this.
I'd bet a lot of the community would get behind you if you would put some effort in this yourself.

[yman]

like putting them all in a directory and playing them in alphabetical order.

That would be way to limited... The first campaign ever released would have its scenarios titled "a-In the Beginning", "b-The Empire Blows Stuff Up", and "c-AAAAAAAA", etc. It's a much smaller leap to specify the order than it is to find a clean way to move from scenario to scenario (there needs to be at least a basic way of these scenarios "interacting" with each other. At the core, a way to pass variables amongst them (a global variable for the campaign?)).

I'm saying that the initial implementation can be super crappy and super basic, just so we'd have something right now. Of course, the goal is to have a super awesome campaign system, but we aren't getting that right away.

Then why don't you start work on your super awesome campaign now? You could write the scenarios, plan, make maps, models, loading screens, cutscenes. then maybe one of the devs of either fork would see a good reason to implement this.
I'd bet a lot of the community would get behind you if you would put some effort in this yourself.

Because I have a college course, a full-time internship, and an "on demand" job to juggle already. I don't have time for more work. I don't even have time to comment on everything I care about, and that's a lot less than what you are suggesting I do.

[softcoder]

With the current dev version of megaglest you are able to load a new scenario from an existing one in lua script at any point in the scenario.