History project[Ideas]

[BronyPony 575]

Well, in my history class our teach allowed us to actually make video games to present our understanding of the following wars:

 

• Spanish-American War
• Great War
• World War 2
• Cold War
• Korean War
• Vietnam War

 

Well, the idea is we have to use 5 of these wars to show whether the U.S. entered these wars for defense or selfish reasons. Since I decided to make this a video game, I decided to choose the Great War, World War 2, Cold War, Korean War, and the Vientnam war.

 

Now, the problem is I need game ideas. I was wondering if anyone had any. I am thinking about making an RTS 3D game(I have 3D skills yes), but I was wondering what anyone else suggested.

[Reani 176]

I think RTS would be the best way to tackle this project. Not only do you have to be strategic but you have to be informed about what is going on in the global playing field. I would love to play this game when you finish it.

[Michael DeSanta 258]

there are plenty of ww2 games and handful of games about the Vietnam. But there are not that many games about korea,the great war or the Spanish American war. be unique and make a game about world war 1 or the Spanish american war.

[BronyPony 575]

 

I was thinking of using this soundtrack as being the transition between peace and war.

 

 

And this would be the intro song.

 

What do you guys think?

[Hawk Moth 390]

I'm not sure what you want in terms of ideas, but I am very interested in what you do. When you finish be sure to link it on here. I'm a big WWI buff.

[Rainblow H. Ash 5,091]

Wow, your teacher actually gave the okay for students to make games as their project?

 

You got one legit teacher, my Bronypony friend!

 

To be honest, making an entire 3D RTS game would be a huge undertaking. Are you sure you shouldn't make something simpler along the lines of a tile-based war game?

 

I'm not questioning skills that you may have, but I don't even know the time constraints on this project or anything.

[BronyPony 575]

Wow, your teacher actually gave the okay for students to make games as their project?

 

You got one legit teacher, my Bronypony friend!

 

To be honest, making an entire 3D RTS game would be a huge undertaking. Are you sure you shouldn't make something simpler along the lines of a tile-based war game?

 

I'm not questioning skills that you may have, but I don't even know the time constraints on this project or anything.

Yeah, my teacher rocks.  

 

Well, I can usually make a 3D game(simple one) in an hour or 2. Since we have like a month to complete it, to make a simple RTS wouldn't take that long.

 

A 3D game would definitely get me an A. 

[Rainblow H. Ash 5,091]

Yeah, my teacher rocks. 

 

Well, I can usually make a 3D game(simple one) in an hour or 2. Since we have like a month to complete it, to make a simple RTS wouldn't take that long.

 

A 3D game would definitely get me an A. 

 

Hmm... a month?

 

Well, I don't doubt that you can make a decent 3D game in a short amount of time, I suppose making a simple little RTS wouldn't be too hard. Now are talking about having like a level for each war where you play as one of the sides and then once you win you move on to the next level?

 

And is this going to have base building or you are just assigned some troops to fight a battle with? Will there be dialogue or text based messages?

 

Lots of things to consider now that I actually think about it.

[BronyPony 575]

Well, the game really needs to start at the basis of the player being the President of the United States. Most of the game will be diplomatic decision making, and the rest would be something like delaring war against countries or what not.

[Rainblow H. Ash 5,091]

Well, the game really needs to start at the basis of the player being the President of the United States. Most of the game will be diplomatic decision making, and the rest would be something like delaring war against countries or what not.

 

Ah, I see! So I guess there would be a segment with different political climates for each time period and then you transition from each time period to another between levels, right? I mean, I get what you're saying, but there's going to be a transition between, say the Spanish-American War and World War I, right? Cause it'd be kind of weird to just jump from one war to the next with no backstory.

[BronyPony 575]

Ah, I see! So I guess there would be a segment with different political climates for each time period and then you transition from each time period to another between levels, right? I mean, I get what you're saying, but there's going to be a transition between, say the Spanish-American War and World War I, right? Cause it'd be kind of weird to just jump from one war to the next with no backstory.

Well, that is essentially the point. There would be a Congress system preventing you from changing the story completely, however some decisions allow you to change the storyline in some ways. For example, instead of sending the Hiroshima bomb to Japan why not send troops there, which would be a decision. It would effect the outcome of the story, however not completely.

[Rainblow H. Ash 5,091]

Well, that is essentially the point. There would be a Congress system preventing you from changing the story completely, however some decisions allow you to change the storyline in some ways. For example, instead of sending the Hiroshima bomb to Japan why not send troops there, which would be a decision. It would effect the outcome of the story, however not completely.

 

Alright, this is sounding pretty cool. I guess you could say it's a simulator in the sense that the very big decisions during each time period is in the hands of the player and that they can see what effect an event had on history, or even what would happen if a different course of action was taken.

 

You seem to have this pretty figured out so far, is there any part of the game in particular you were having trouble thinking of?

[BronyPony 575]

Well, mostly I have problems with gameplay. What should I include in gameplay? Should I include some moving of troops into the battlefield or only have diplomatic systems.

[Rainblow H. Ash 5,091]

Oh I see, so you're thinking of whether or not you want the actual warfare to be in the game! Well, I guess you can if you want. For a history project, you really don't need it, but if you want to go that extra step and perhaps give the player the ability to go in and actually fight a battle, that'd be pretty freaking cool. For example, say a player chooses to invade mainland Japan with soldiers; they could actually move soldiers on ships onto a beach and fight some defenders to win the level.

 

But that would take a lot more work to implement, which is one reason why I brought up time constraints in my first post. There are plenty of game designers out there who take a lot longer to make games that aren't even half as ambitious as this one. My only real suggestion is not to try to throw too much into it and overwhelm yourself.

[Michael DeSanta 258]

Well, mostly I have problems with gameplay. What should I include in gameplay? Should I include some moving of troops into the battlefield or only have diplomatic systems.

Moveing troops into the battlefield sounds nice. A diplomatic system would not work so well for war to be honest. But hey that is my oppinions.

[Veylon 255]

Well, mostly I have problems with gameplay. What should I include in gameplay? Should I include some moving of troops into the battlefield or only have diplomatic systems.

Either can be good, depending on what the game is about. If you're going to illustrate the deal-making and Alliance system that dragged the world into the Great War, it'd be better to focus on politics. Maybe especially on internal politics, so you can show why so many leaders felt that they had no choice but to make war.

[Evilshy 5,090]

Have you ever made a strategy game? The AI programming is arguably harder than in any other genre. Making the game primarily political only makes it worse.

 

That being said, maybe it's mostly politics with some statistical based battles fought? I mean, the leader of a country at war doesn't actually command the troops and come up with the tactics or anything, he gives general plans like "takes these cities" and let's the generals take over.

In game, perhaps you can allocate different kinds of troop divisions (infantry, artillery, armored, etc.) to different cities and regions. You could also set different officers over different battles, each one having their own strengths and weaknesses, and their own preferred tactics, that sort of thing. Same thing for the enemy side. Send all these numbers through some complicated algorithms, and it spits out the results of the battle. It'd be hard, but not as hard as programming micromanagement AI

[Lewis the Brony 110]

Also, I believe that RTS requires a programming language and scripts, since, without scripts and programming language, your game would be basically dead.

So, what programming language are you using? Are you doing Lua, Python, C+++ etc. Or, are you just using a game maker to make games? In either way, you need to start learning lessons about programming before you start making the game, otherwise your soldiers won't move and probably just stay there because they have no instructions.

[BronyPony 575]

Also, I believe that RTS requires a programming language and scripts, since, without scripts and programming language, your game would be basically dead.

 

So, what programming language are you using? Are you doing Lua, Python, C+++ etc. Or, are you just using a game maker to make games? In either way, you need to start learning lessons about programming before you start making the game, otherwise your soldiers won't move and probably just stay there because they have no instructions.

I actually have been programming for 8 years(which is why I chose this specific project). I am using Game Maker because it requires less time to make.

 

Have you ever made a strategy game? The AI programming is arguably harder than in any other genre. Making the game primarily political only makes it worse.

 

That being said, maybe it's mostly politics with some statistical based battles fought? I mean, the leader of a country at war doesn't actually command the troops and come up with the tactics or anything, he gives general plans like "takes these cities" and let's the generals take over.

In game, perhaps you can allocate different kinds of troop divisions (infantry, artillery, armored, etc.) to different cities and regions. You could also set different officers over different battles, each one having their own strengths and weaknesses, and their own preferred tactics, that sort of thing. Same thing for the enemy side. Send all these numbers through some complicated algorithms, and it spits out the results of the battle. It'd be hard, but not as hard as programming micromanagement AI

I have, but mainly in the 2nd dimension. 3 dimensional RTS requires more variables, for environment more specifically than the other parts. I was thinking that there would be some "fixed" AI, like the Congress decisions and so forth, where your tactics drive somewhat where the game is heading.