Now that The Last Stand Union City is almost to be released by Conartist Games, I wonder if he will work on another installmen of the Warfare series. According to his website from a long while ago he said he would. I think the next one should be Warfare 1776. You can either be the Brits or American. I think it should go back to the single tier battle lines like 1917 was. That would be more consistent with how they fought back then.
Optic thats a good point. I didnt like how long it took to reload infantry in 1944 I DID like the mortar team in 1944 because it was a unit on the field that could be killed if not protected as opposed to shells raining down from the sky like in 1917. I liked artillery barrages but I didnt like in 1944 how you had to have an officer to call them and they took so many points to build up to call one that left you without reinforements. Lets revisit a Revolutionary war game though. What units would you need to have
No please put a modern era theatre and please put more countries, im bored of playing insurgents/USA , put other countries like Brazil the best of soulth america and other different countries and weapons make at least 10 teams would be the best game ever
Multiplayer , but what Theatre? He wont do any 20th century or later conflict. That just leaves the possibility of ancient warfare theatres. I dont know if he would do a mutiplayer. Even TLS was single player and he put over a year into it. Interesting idea. Thanks Valboss.
Multiplayer , but what Theatre? He wont do any 20th century or later conflict. That just leaves the possibility of ancient warfare theatres. I dont know if he would do a mutiplayer. Even TLS was single player and he put over a year into it. Interesting idea. Thanks Valboss.
Theatre would depend soley on what war the game was based on. It doesn't really matter what subject it is, as long as every unit has a counter.
And it wouldn't be *that* hard to implement. Just use the map generator that you had in 1917, make a random generator attachement, and then allow it to script over the internet so others can hook up to it. No lobbys or anything, just a feature that lets you face up against anyone else who was roaming:
1) Click 'Multiplayer' tab 2) Box comes up, says something like 'Searching...' 3) Box comes up, says something like 'Game Found.' 4) You join the game, and play it out.
TLS is the last stand crazyape. It's a pretty cool zombie killing game that's done very well. Conartist Games made it and the warfare games. I'm not into zombie games, but he did a good job with it.
You're futuristic fight game justs needs a diferent platform. Warfare may not be it.
So like I said before, what theatre would work well with the multiplayer that Valboss suggested? I don't think he would go back to WW1 or WW2. I really think The Revolution would work. American Civil War would too.
So I decided to play Warfare 1944 to get some ideas instead. I think the American Revolution is still the most logical choice.
I think just as the first 2 games there are run of the mill infantrymen, the Americans could have their militiamen or minutemen. They were not as well trained and equipped as the Continental Army but were the first defense. I don't know what the Brittish army had for a counterpart. I'm sure that could be worked out.
Then, next up in the pecking order is the Continental Army which were most of the times a little better equipped than the locals. They could have the option for fixed bayonets and once you give them the order to charge they would advance more quickly in hopes to reach the enemy lines before they reload.
Obviously we have no machine gunners which would be next. That's what I need a little help on, what would be a good alternative that was around back then to stop the massive wall of soldiers advancing? Help me out here with some ideas people.
Next you have cannons. Either make the cannon so that it would fire a round that would bounce a few times and kill units 2 or three rows back or make the multiple row kill an upgrade. Cannons would be like the mortar and bazooka units in 1944- keep them back and well protected.
I think there really needs to be a sniper element too. I originally thought incorporating the native americans with a long bow, but I think you could use a French sharpshooter instead. Or just make it an American sharpshooter.
For officers, they could either be on foot or on horseback. Mostly Colonels and Generals were on horseback. Again, a unit better kept back and gaurded but close enough to influence the troops and give them a morale boost.
Some levels can be played where Man of War naval ships could be used as the alternative to "artillery".
Perhaps some of the real life battles can be played as a level. Concord and Lexington would have to be one of the first and Yorktown being the endgame.
The Americans were way outnumbered and outgunned. But they were fighting for their freedom and their towns and homes. I think the game could incorporate this effect by making giving the Brittish troop reinforcements faster but the Americans stronger morale. As the game progresses upgrades and be better guns and cannons for the Yanks that were captured or stolen. Morale upgrades can be bought with game XP. Faster Troop reinforcement, more accurate snipers.
But something has to make this game better than the previous. That something could be multiplayer, but I do think there should be a single player mode too.
It didn't have to be a battle, man. But when someone just wants to argue instead of being respectful to other people who want to share ideas, others become defensive.
Threads are supposed to be for SHARING ideas, not knowcking them down. It's one thing to point out flaws or roadblocks in someone's ideas, but when they pick apart everything you say and do it in a condescending manner, some people are just going to ignore it, others are going to make fun of them for being so socially inept- because they deserve it. I should have ignored it from the beginning, and I regret that I let it go this far. But that's a few pages back now, and Mav should be ignored. I'd rather bow out at this point than take the argument any further. So let's stay on topic.
This thread turned into a battle between mav and The Turd
XD
Threads are supposed to be for SHARING ideas, not knowcking them down
I shared my ideas, and I said why I didn't like yours. If you can't take criticism, don't post your ideas. Its as simply as that.
others are going to make fun of them for being so socially inept- because they deserve it.
To take out the Euphemisms: Some people should be bullied, because they deserve it.
Honestly, you are the most immature person I have seen here. You whine whenever someone shakes a stick in your general direction, have the audacity to make the claim that I don't have any right to post here, and then are childish enough to ignore me and my suggestions. Really man, grow up! If this is how you get everytime someones not your friend, then you're going to have a heck of a time in the real world.
Again, I don't think the Revolutinary War is the best. You've taken out the Aisle system, which is what made the game have such a high level of strategy. You're trying to make it overly complicated, rather than making it simpler.
The Hundred Years' War would be a better choice in my opinion. It would introduce a melee element that none of the other games have, and it would put the spot light on a little known conflict (at least in the Americas), so it would also be educational. Again, I've already said why I don't like the Revolutinary War, so I won't re-iterate on that.
have the audacity to make the claim that I don't have any right to post here,
Actually twice I said you DO have the right to post here, so...
and then are childish enough to ignore me and my suggestions. Really man, grow up! If this is how you get everytime someones not your friend, then you're going to have a heck of a time in the real world.
The real world? Dude, you know nothing about the real world, you're addicted to gaming! I checked out your bio, are you really 15? Son, I've got a job, a family, great friends- actual real people I interact with face to face. We share ideas, when we don't see eye to eye, we agree to disagree. If you really are 15 like your bio says, please don't use the term "the real world" until you are old enough to drive, vote, serve in the military, get married, rent a car, buy a house and have children.
others are going to make fun of them for being so socially inept- because they deserve it. To take out the Euphemisms: Some people should be bullied, because they deserve it.
That's not what I meant, but go ahead and put your spin on it. It really kills me to keep arguing with you- I just can't help it. I think because we are so far apart in age, we won't see eye to eye. We look for diferent things in flash games. It's really not worth it though. Listen, I apologize that 5 pages ago I pissed you off. But you came across really condescending, and you don't talk to people like that unless you are prepared to deal with it coming back to you. I'm not the only one trying to tell you this. Someone else did around page 3 or 4. And instead of realizing that you're attitude was the common denominator, you brushed it off, defended why you acted that way and continued with your condescending words. If you want YOUR ideas to be listened to, don't be argumentative.
Let's look back at the last 5 pages and take away yours and my posts. There's not much interest in a warfare sequel besides our strong opinions. Let's just leave it that way man. If Con decides to do another one, we'll just see when it happens. I've posted my ideas for the Warfare: 1776, actually looked at your criticism and made some revisions (ie Native Americans as snipers), and I'm done posting. I'm just going to take a back seat and see what other people's ideas are now.
Please be polite to any others who post on this thread. Thanks Mav.
