A MegaMek single-player campaign: Will it work? Interested?

[Trailblazer]

I've been nursing a dream for some time now: the dream of a single-player, story-driven campaign for Megamek.  I've been working on bits and pieces of it, but before I take it too far I wanted to throw the basic ideas out for critique:

-At heart it would be a mix of BattleTech fan fiction and scenarios played against the bot.

-The story would be formatted like a BattleTech novel, but instead of describing the battles, the reader/player would follow the story until a major battle occurs and then play the battle in Megamek.  This would ideally provide a feel sort of like the single-player campaign for a strategy game like WarCraft or StarCraft.

-The Megamek 'scenario' file format seems too limiting, especially since (a) the bot is bad at deployment and (b) I'd like to set interesting mission objectives beyond just "kill all enemy" or "kill the enemy commander"

-Thus the missions would be made available in the format of saved games from the new stable release (once it is finalized).  Players would simply load each mission, replace the enemy player with the bot and proceed.

-Players would have to be trusted to handle mission objectives themselves, where these objectives weren't just simple wipe out the enemy stuff.  For example, you could say that the player wins once a particular Karnov transport lands at a particular hex, in an escort mission.

-The story would focus on a major mercenary unit (about the same level of importance to BT history as the Kell Hounds or the Gray Death Legion), and go from 3035 or so until at least 3067.

Does this seem like it would work?  Can you think of potential problems in the way of implementing my idea?

I'm also wondering, is anyone potentially interested in helping out with these missions?  It would be nice to have at least some of the missions take place on new custom maps, for example, and I'm not exactly a seasoned user of the MM map editor.  Custom icons for some original 'Mech designs appearing in the campaign would also be very cool.

[Davout73]

Have you seen the solo rules Makinus and other have developed?

Links in my sig.

Dav

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, those against-the-bot rules are really interesting and I've been meaning to try them for a while.  What I see as different about my idea for a campaign is that it will tell a fixed story, rather than run the player through a series of randomly generated contracts.

[Raggedy_Man]

Hey, I really like this idea.

I would like to help, but I know nothing about the map editor.  I don't have much in the way of computer skills, but I'd be happy to help with fact-checking for the era, as well as developing storyline and/or writing fiction if you need help with that.

If you're looking for a major merc unit, what about the 21st Centauri Lancers?  In spite of their reputation, experience level, and rating, they don't seem to figure prominently on the various deployment tables, even in Brush Wars.  There's a lot of open space that would be easy to fill with a campaign that wouldn't interfere with canon.

Or are you thinking about a non-canon/homebrew unit?

[Taharqa]

But if you start a saved game then how would you adjust for which of the player's units survived the previous scenarios?

One of the long term goals of MekHQ is the ability to create XML based campaigns that the user would be able to load with preset missions and scenarios where different scenario resolutions would potentially branch you off in a different direction. Its not going to happen on this development cycle though, maybe 0.5.

[Trailblazer]

I would like to help, but I know nothing about the map editor.  I don't have much in the way of computer skills, but I'd be happy to help with fact-checking for the era, as well as developing storyline and/or writing fiction if you need help with that.

I probably should have mentioned, there are several other types of help that would be really useful.  For example, constructing the non-map parts of scenarios (putting together interesting combinations of player forces and opposing forces in .MUL unit list files) would by itself be a big help for the scenarios I haven't worked on yet.  Or setting up the initial deployment of units, or playtesting missions.  I don't consider myself a whiz at coming up with interesting force compositions, so any of these could be very helpful.

As far as the story goes, I've been tinkering with it for several months and have about 30 pages written so far, with a lot more outlined, so that's the one part I feel I have well in hand.

Or are you thinking about a non-canon/homebrew unit?

I do indeed have a non-canon homebrew unit in mind, a mercenary unit that begins its existence in the 3030s as a Level III unit that mutinies against the Com Guard and grows into an elite mercenary regiment over a period of decades.  There will also be some departures from canon in the storyline, although no large ones until quite late in the history.  I'm planning to work in references to much-loved but long-ignored parts of BT lore.  For example, the Blazing Aces will appear, as will several characters and units from old issues of BattleTechnology.

But if you start a saved game then how would you adjust for which of the player's units survived the previous scenarios?

That would be another large difference from the against-the-bot campaigns.  Damage and such would not carry over, so in that way it would be like the StarCraft or Crescent Hawks' Revenge campaigns rather than MW2: Mercenaries (for example).  I don't plan to use MekHQ at all; the campaign will only use Megamek.

[Wolverine]

Sounds like an excellent idea, the only software going for BT now is just the online basic shooter (nice eye candy I'm sure, but there is something to be said for a good storyline game).
Would the game keep track of the units spare parts, gear, expenses , TO& E basically and force the economics to figure into the players choices too ?
Linear or flexible campaign choices ?
Ya you can tell, I've been missing this type of game.
J

[Trailblazer]

For the reasons Taharqa pointed out, it wouldn't really be possible to keep track of supplies, etc.  But I plan on putting together missions that center around limited resources in certain ways (like 'Mechs that start out with damage or depleted ammo).

At the moment, my plan is for a linear storyline.  The amount of writing involved in just that is pretty daunting!  My ideal is something that feels as much as possible like Crescent Hawks' Revenge.

[Raggedy_Man]

I probably should have mentioned, there are several other types of help that would be really useful.  For example, constructing the non-map parts of scenarios (putting together interesting combinations of player forces and opposing forces in .MUL unit list files) would by itself be a big help for the scenarios I haven't worked on yet.  Or setting up the initial deployment of units, or playtesting missions.  I don't consider myself a whiz at coming up with interesting force compositions, so any of these could be very helpful.

Cool--pm me and I'd be happy to help! 

[ColonelCody]

Would the game keep track of the units spare parts, gear, expenses , TO& E basically and force the economics to figure into the players choices too ?
J

MekHQ is the version for this aspect. I would imagine the program would control the economics once the parameters are entered.

[Trailblazer]

Cool--pm me and I'd be happy to help!

Fantastic, I will!  O0

[kaliyama]

[deleted]

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, I suppose the scenario books are a better comparison with what I have in mind.

Part of the reason that persistent MUL files seem unlikely to work is that (for plot reasons) the player's mercenary unit will be a full regiment with armor, aerospace, dropships and jumpships etc, and only a small portion of it will participate in any given mission.  The Crescent Hawks were one company, which makes keeping track of such things much more feasible.

[acemarke]

Someone also put together a "Megamek Solo War" application a while back, which had some similarities to MekHQ.  I believe it was originally posted before the last forum crash.  There is a brief discussion thread on the current board here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=12009.0 . 

I actually still have the software lying around my hard drive.  No source code with it, but it's Java, so it could always be decompiled and used for some ideas if nothing else.

[kaliyama]

[deleted]

[ralgith]

That'd do it.  Save games it is.  Good luck!

Save games is never the way to go. Ever. Make scenario files instead.

[Trailblazer]

Save games is never the way to go. Ever. Make scenario files instead.

Is it possible to set up the starting deployment of units in a scenario file?  I didn't think that was possible.

[Trailblazer]

What are the disadvantages of using save game files?  Just compatibility across different release versions of MegaMek?

[ralgith]

What are the disadvantages of using save game files?  Just compatibility across different release versions of MegaMek?

Until we stabilize the XML saves to allow for perfect forward moving saves: Yes.

That, and it isn't what they're intended for. Scenario files are intended for that. A scenario file should be able to do everything you want it done.

[Trailblazer]

I've checked out the scenario file format, and it does look like it can do more than I thought, but there are a few problems:

(1) From what I can tell aerospace units can't begin the game grounded.  I have several missions in mind where the player will assault a DropShip.

(2) It looks like all units have to deploy on turn 1 in a scenario?  Again, I have a few ideas for missions where late-game reinforcements are crucial.

(3) This is less major, but I'd like to use individual custom camo on different units for the same player in some missions, and I don't see any way to do that in an MMS file.

(4) There are a number of custom units and maps I'd like to include in missions, and I'd like to avoid the player having to download a big package of HMP and board files and then put them all in their respective folders before playing the missions.  My understanding is that save files include all the details of the map and units used.

My thinking was that every mission's save file could come packaged in a zip file with a filename that says "onlyforMM0.36" (once the stable release is ready).  This is certainly limiting, though, and my reason #4 is not the biggest deal in the world.  So maybe a thing to do would be to use save files only for missions where I use reinforcements and grounded ships, and scenario files for all the other missions?

[ralgith]

I've checked out the scenario file format, and it does look like it can do more than I thought, but there are a few problems:

(1) From what I can tell aerospace units can't begin the game grounded.  I have several missions in mind where the player will assault a DropShip.

This would probably need to be added to the format.

(2) It looks like all units have to deploy on turn 1 in a scenario?  Again, I have a few ideas for missions where late-game reinforcements are crucial.

You should be able to do delayed deployment in scenario files.

(3) This is less major, but I'd like to use individual custom camo on different units for the same player in some missions, and I don't see any way to do that in an MMS file.

Scenario files already support individual camo.

(4) There are a number of custom units and maps I'd like to include in missions, and I'd like to avoid the player having to download a big package of HMP and board files and then put them all in their respective folders before playing the missions.  My understanding is that save files include all the details of the map and units used.

Save files do. But that doesn't make them a good idea. Board files and custom mech files are easy enough. Just do what I do and publish your own releases with the files pre-included.

My thinking was that every mission's save file could come packaged in a zip file with a filename that says "onlyforMM0.36" (once the stable release is ready).  This is certainly limiting, though, and my reason #4 is not the biggest deal in the world.  So maybe a thing to do would be to use save files only for missions where I use reinforcements and grounded ships, and scenario files for all the other missions?

Or just have scenario files updated to support more options than they already do.

[Trailblazer]

This would probably need to be added to the format.

I'm afraid I have nothing like the programming chops needed to alter the format.  #P

Is there an example of a scenario file that uses delayed deployment and/or individual camo that you (or anybody?) can point me to?  The scenario files readme doesn't say anything about these options (though it does have a nice explanation of deploying units to particular hexes, guess I should have checked there first).

[ralgith]

I'm afraid I have nothing like the programming chops needed to alter the format.  #P

Is there an example of a scenario file that uses delayed deployment and/or individual camo that you (or anybody?) can point me to?  The scenario files readme doesn't say anything about these options (though it does have a nice explanation of deploying units to particular hexes, guess I should have checked there first).

I'll have to go looking in the code. I guess whoever committed the patch to use the individual camo in them forgot to adjust the instructions. I'll get back to you on that. Delayed deployment I'm not 100% sure it is in, but I really thought it was.

Did you browse all the included scenario files?

[Trailblazer]

You know what, it does have the delayed deployment instructions.  I was searching for the wrong word in the document.  Thanks for your patience, ralgith.  :)

[ralgith]

You know what, it does have the delayed deployment instructions.  I was searching for the wrong word in the document.  Thanks for your patience, ralgith.  :)

I just added to the scenario readme.
19. Camo options
# Set a camo for the player
# Replace Category and File with the appropriate names
Camo_Faction=Category,File
# Set a unit specific individual camo
# Again, replace Category and File with the appropriate names
Unit_WacosRangers_1_Camo=Category,File

[Trailblazer]

Excellent, thanks so much.

[Trailblazer]

From the scenario readme:

9. Faction location
# Only used if the faction contains a unit without specified starting coordinates (not used in this scenario)
# Valid values are N,NE,E,SE,S,SW,W,NW,C (center), and R (random)
# Example: Location_Kurita=C This is currently the only working way of a "specified" placement. It will place
# all the Units in this location on the map randomly. It also determains facing randomly.

Is it possible to set a faction's location to "Any" so the player can deploy the units anywhere on the board?

[ralgith]

From the scenario readme:

Is it possible to set a faction's location to "Any" so the player can deploy the units anywhere on the board?

I believe that is the default if you don't specify a starting location for a faction at all.

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, that does seem to be how it works.  Great!

[pfarland]

I would be interested in a bunch of these if you could use your own forces.  I like customizing mechs too much.