Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimboM12]

Even though we have a chat for it already and we know its in dev, i wish M&B Bannerlords was out. I'm going through a new Vikings campaign (best mod (hey it was made by the brytenwalda dudes, so i count it as paid mod dlc) ever made) and I'm uniting all Christendom of the isles to defend against the great heathen army.

More relevant to the thread, i want a modern version of M&B. Could be post-apocalyptic sure, but something where i can make my own faction and fight alongside them.

Just realized i posted this same sentiment earlier on the thread but still, could use more recommendations.

[Trekkin]

I'd like an inverse RTS where the whole map starts at war and you have to slowly restore peace to the region through a combination of diplomacy and soft power projection. You could have resources like political capital and public goodwill in addition to funding, and earn more as the belligerents return units to their spawn points to be withdrawn from the conflict.

I'm just personally really tired of war games. Waging peace sounds more fun.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I'd like an inverse RTS where the whole map starts at war and you have to slowly restore peace to the region through a combination of diplomacy and soft power projection. You could have resources like political capital and public goodwill in addition to funding, and earn more as the belligerents return units to their spawn points to be withdrawn from the conflict.

I'm just personally really tired of war games. Waging peace sounds more fun.

This sounds awesome actually.

[NRDL]

I'd like an inverse RTS where the whole map starts at war and you have to slowly restore peace to the region through a combination of diplomacy and soft power projection. You could have resources like political capital and public goodwill in addition to funding, and earn more as the belligerents return units to their spawn points to be withdrawn from the conflict.

I'm just personally really tired of war games. Waging peace sounds more fun.

This sounds awesome actually.

+1

[Parsely]

I'd like an inverse RTS where the whole map starts at war and you have to slowly restore peace to the region through a combination of diplomacy and soft power projection. You could have resources like political capital and public goodwill in addition to funding, and earn more as the belligerents return units to their spawn points to be withdrawn from the conflict.

I'm just personally really tired of war games. Waging peace sounds more fun.

So do you lose if a side manages to destroy the other's home base, or how does that work? Since you don't have units to attack enemies with I'm assuming you have ways to manipulate enemies into fighting over unimportant objectives while you negotiate peace.

[Trekkin]

I'd like an inverse RTS where the whole map starts at war and you have to slowly restore peace to the region through a combination of diplomacy and soft power projection. You could have resources like political capital and public goodwill in addition to funding, and earn more as the belligerents return units to their spawn points to be withdrawn from the conflict.

I'm just personally really tired of war games. Waging peace sounds more fun.

So do you lose if a side manages to destroy the other's home base, or how does that work? Since you don't have units to attack enemies with I'm assuming you have ways to manipulate enemies into fighting over unimportant objectives while you negotiate peace.

That's one way. You could also have some budget of HP that gets lost as both sides' units take damage, but I like your way better.

Alternatively, you could have all the sides have doomsday weapons. You lose if any are fired; you win when all sides disarm them all. Kind of like an inverse DEFCON, and perhaps the only way to build a game in which one could be said to win a nuclear war.

I didn't realize other people would like this idea. I may have to try coding this.

[PTTG??]

A VR game with non-euclidian spaces/dynamic portals/spacetime distortion. While we're at it, make it have no guns. We get it, VR is great for gunplay. Give us something new.

[RAM]

You could also have a population viability counter. It would typically go down super-slowly, but if the war drags on for long enough then you start to run low on people to throw into the grinder. It would be a cautionary thing to avoid getting stuck in an endless delaying-tactic loop. On the other hand, perhaps one side finds a way around it and starts producing robot soldiers or something, and then they start realising that the longer the war goes on for the better off they will be if it ends, and starts specifically aiming for attrition with glee and then you have a whole new motivation for killing people that you have to contend with.

[EnigmaticHat]

I'd like an inverse RTS where the whole map starts at war and you have to slowly restore peace to the region through a combination of diplomacy and soft power projection. You could have resources like political capital and public goodwill in addition to funding, and earn more as the belligerents return units to their spawn points to be withdrawn from the conflict.

I'm just personally really tired of war games. Waging peace sounds more fun.

Undercommander is a game about not fighting wars.

One angle would be playing a human rights group that has to enter a warzone.  Provide medical care and temporary infrastructure to refugees.  Use journalists as scouts and gather gripping war footage to increase international pressure against the war.  Call in care packages for civilians and hope that none of the soldiers get to them.  You have a reputation with both sides and if they catch you assisting the other side or spying on them, they'll begin to arrest your agents (temporarily removing them from play) and eventually the less scrupulous elements will start attacking you.  On the other hand if you assist one side enough they'll warn you about their artillery strikes so you can get out of the way, but you shouldn't be openly taking a side in the war or your funding might dry up...

[StagnantSoul]

I'd love a comedic harem game with no sexual stuff involved, just some nerd accidentally getting dates and not knowing what to do so he fails miserably, but they come back anyway.

[Gatleos]

I'd like an inverse RTS where the whole map starts at war and you have to slowly restore peace to the region through a combination of diplomacy and soft power projection. You could have resources like political capital and public goodwill in addition to funding, and earn more as the belligerents return units to their spawn points to be withdrawn from the conflict.

I'm just personally really tired of war games. Waging peace sounds more fun.

Undercommander is a game about not fighting wars.

One angle would be playing a human rights group that has to enter a warzone.  Provide medical care and temporary infrastructure to refugees.  Use journalists as scouts and gather gripping war footage to increase international pressure against the war.  Call in care packages for civilians and hope that none of the soldiers get to them.  You have a reputation with both sides and if they catch you assisting the other side or spying on them, they'll begin to arrest your agents (temporarily removing them from play) and eventually the less scrupulous elements will start attacking you.  On the other hand if you assist one side enough they'll warn you about their artillery strikes so you can get out of the way, but you shouldn't be openly taking a side in the war or your funding might dry up...

I really like the idea of the player representing a neutral and non-centralized power on a battlefield, like activist-journalists and refugee relief NGOs. The groups aren't necessarily working together or even communicating in any way, but the player is orchestrating all their actions at once.



...I'm still antsy about those concepts for strategy games about running cults, managing a wartime economy, and being Sauron. It seems like most games that I wish existed are grand strategy games of one kind or another.

[Parsely]

I'd love a comedic harem game with no sexual stuff involved, just some nerd accidentally getting dates and not knowing what to do so he fails miserably, but they come back anyway.

Isn't that literally 99% of dating sims?

[Sirus]

I'd love a comedic harem game with no sexual stuff involved, just some nerd accidentally getting dates and not knowing what to do so he fails miserably, but they come back anyway.

Isn't that literally 99% of dating sims?

I dunno about 99%.

[Trekkin]

I'd like an inverse RTS where the whole map starts at war and you have to slowly restore peace to the region through a combination of diplomacy and soft power projection. You could have resources like political capital and public goodwill in addition to funding, and earn more as the belligerents return units to their spawn points to be withdrawn from the conflict.

I'm just personally really tired of war games. Waging peace sounds more fun.

Undercommander is a game about not fighting wars.

One angle would be playing a human rights group that has to enter a warzone.  Provide medical care and temporary infrastructure to refugees.  Use journalists as scouts and gather gripping war footage to increase international pressure against the war.  Call in care packages for civilians and hope that none of the soldiers get to them.  You have a reputation with both sides and if they catch you assisting the other side or spying on them, they'll begin to arrest your agents (temporarily removing them from play) and eventually the less scrupulous elements will start attacking you.  On the other hand if you assist one side enough they'll warn you about their artillery strikes so you can get out of the way, but you shouldn't be openly taking a side in the war or your funding might dry up...

I really like the idea of the player representing a neutral and non-centralized power on a battlefield, like activist-journalists and refugee relief NGOs. The groups aren't necessarily working together or even communicating in any way, but the player is orchestrating all their actions at once.



...I'm still antsy about those concepts for strategy games about running cults, managing a wartime economy, and being Sauron. It seems like most games that I wish existed are grand strategy games of one kind or another.

The way I'm currently putting together the design document (and code) assumes a heterogeneity of command specificity reminiscent of Evil Genius: you have a small number of specific, unique assets to position directly, and then vast hordes of minions doing more or less what they please subject to your indirect incentives. So you might infiltrate a particular journalist to get footage of a war zone, which you can then turn into agitprop with which to drive your anonymous protesters to new heights of picketing-based enthusiasm via your social media presence. Unless, of course, they get shot.

[bloop_bleep]

A game where you design machines and send them out to kill people.
If this exists, tell me.
If this doesn't exist, I just found myself a new programming project.