Scourge of War Boards

Edit: Much of what I discuss here has been implemented, see www.sowmp.com.



Most people who have been playing multiplayer very long should understand the following two points:
1. If you do not play with objectives, there is no guaranteed incentive for one side to attack, so both sides can and often do sit on high ground until the one side gets bored.
2. If you do play with objectives, one side will take them first and has the advantage that they can wait indefinitely. However the attacking side doesn't have a real reason to attack sooner rather than later, which if all players make ideal decisions, leads to boring games where little happens for a long time. Since as players get smarter, more games will become this way, there is less replay-ability eventually.

My opinion is that SoWGB needs this system:

A. An odd number of objectives spread around the map.
B. The objectives must give an obvious, real advantage to the side that holds them, over time. For instance, ammunition, or reinforcements (even refilling the strength of existing regiments).

This has the following effects:
A. The defender by definition is the side that has more of these objectives at any given time. The side with less objectives at the start should have a slight advantage in troop strength to balance it. There must of course be a time limit at which point whoever holds more objectives wins, to eliminate the possibility of the attacking side waiting for the defending side to get bored.

B. The attacking side obviously cannot wait indefinitely. They have every reason to act immediately. They gain nothing by waiting. The defender has to spread their forces out more to hold their objectives. This allows the attacker to concentrate, gaining an advantage in one spot.

C. After the "attacking" side takes objectives such that they now have more than the "defending" side, the roles switch, by definition. This makes for a dynamic game.


This system is used in all successful real time tactics games on the market that I've seen. Without this system (or something that causes the same effect) there cannot exist a strong competitive multiplayer community. Interesting competition is what makes a multiplayer community thrive. Company of Heroes is probably the most successful competitive game set in history and it has a perfect implementation of this theory.

I implemented this system in my American Conquest Divided Nation engine, and it worked almost 100% to eliminate standoffs, which had been very common since it was an ACW game. It's a very simple system for players to grasp and it is guaranteed to work by its very definition.

Interesting points and after all this is unfortunately the price to pay for games when compared to the real thing.

To make things realistic actually and STILL perfectly historic, I think there's a much easier solution. I do not really know how MP works (yet) but I presume it's not so different from sanbox type where one side is on the attack and the other on defense. I also presume these can be altered by the host at will... then there's of course the scenario settings (deployment and objectives).

My idea is more time oriented... totally dislinked from points accumulation in regards with objectives, I think the best solution would be to assign a time limit. With a time limit (i.e. match ending when time limit is reached) there can't be camping.

Lee would not have risked all in a gamble at Gettysburg had he not needed to find a political solution to the war after the victory. He also was short on supplies that's what made him attack so recklessly. I believe we can easily achieve the goal you proposed by simply adding a time limiter. Following the example of Lee, CSA would be compelled to attack and hold the objective before the time ends because, for example, failing to do that would allow another army to reach battle or his supplies would end and he would be forced to forage (hence withdraw) and so on.

Unfortunately, ALL GAMES share the same camping technique performed by smart and experienced players of course. Imagine a game of Dangerous Waters where you must silently seek the opponent with your passive acoustics. The guy who doesn't move is silent... the guy who searches for him isn't. It can take hours and hours...

Now when the objective has no time limit why would a smart player move at all? Let him come to search me so I hear him and I am at advantage. But with a time limit there has to be one side attacking and another defending and if both sides must reach the objective to make points before time runs out then both sides only have one advantage, terrain, so they both will move for it.

Why in reality armies don't behave as you mention ?
Why Napoleon at Waterloo decides to attack and Wellington decides to defend ?
Why Napoleon didn't decide to wait like Wellington until this one got bored and attacked.

Is there some gamedesigner behind the scene who put some objective bonus ?

The battle occurs because it's the result of decisions in strategic level, and in the fact that at least one side has interest in searching the fight and is convinced he can win.

What SoWGB needs is what every battle game needs, a strategic campaign system
which creates the context of the battle where each side defines the role he will play during the battle. The important places on the battlefield have to be the result of terrain analysis by each side.

I heard somewhere a strategic layer is on the way so lets be patient.

I do not really know how MP works (yet)

Try a few games with me or anyone who has experience and doesn't mind waiting himself.

My idea is more time oriented... totally dislinked from points accumulation in regards with objectives, I think the best solution would be to assign a time limit. With a time limit (i.e. match ending when time limit is reached) there can't be camping.

It already works this way when you play with objectives and I addressed that in my post. A simple time limit does force one side to do something eventually, but it gives them no incentive to do it quickly. And it makes the game focused on one event, with very little variety. There can be one objective, the defender can form his army in a circle around it, and do nothing else.

Unfortunately, ALL GAMES share the same camping technique performed by smart and experienced players of course.

This isn't true. Play Company of Heroes for instance.

Why in reality armies don't behave as you mention ?

Real war is extremely boring, I and most others who play games in our little free time do not want real war.

What SoWGB needs is what every battle game needs, a strategic campaign system

This does solve the problem for people who are into the strategic campaign, but for those who are just playing individual battles, it's no different. The campaign system would take infinitely more work to create, and would only solve the problem for those who are playing the campaign, which I dare say will not be most players.


Please understand I love what this game can be, and what I expect it will be eventually. But right now the absence of an incentive to action makes competitive multiplayer essentially impossible.

I disagree in part with Garnier. I have played lots of MP games over the last 2 weeks – all hunt them down without objectives - and with the exception of one game, at least one side, if not both sides marched in the direction of the opponent to fight it out. In one game (2vs2, div vs div) our opponents marched to a hill and sat there. As I was controlling the union division I beat the ai-controlled units, saw that our opponents didn’t come to me, so I marched to their front, attacked their flanks and ultimately defeated them. What’s the reason to play MP if you don’t want to fight!? When I decide to play a mp game, I want to have a good battle, I want to have fun and winning is welcome but ultimately not necessary. So no matter whether I am equal in numbers or not, if the opponents refuse to give battle, then I will come to them and will try to give them hell.

Now, your MP league is an entirely different thing. As far as I know you have a campaign map, consecutive battles, casualties, reinforcements and such stuff. So in each battle you have to take these factors into account, whether a certain decision on the battlefield makes sense or not. You have to think more strategic and objectives may give your battles/campaigns a more realistic and/or historical feeling and the attacker an extra incentive to ultimately attack.

But if you want to play a casual mp game, objectives imho are not essential for an enjoyable time. The important thing is that a human player has the overall command on both sides (if it's not coop vs. ai). (I have to admit I avoid that yet sometimes because i am still not comfortable with controlling divisions with more than 3 brigades .)

The one thing that still bothers me is to find enough players in the lobby on a regular basis. Sometimes you can play game after game with up to 10 players and sometimes you wait what seems to be an eternity, until at least 4 players come in the lobby to have a decent mp game.

I want to have fun and winning is welcome but ultimately not necessary. So no matter whether I am equal in numbers or not, if the opponents refuse to give battle, then I will come to them and will try to give them hell.

There are some people who do not care about winning, however there are also a lot of people including myself who have fun by trying to win. Whether I win or lose, I don't enjoy games where I'm not trying to win. And currently the best way to try to win is to defend high ground and not attack, which is realistic but quickly gets boring. Currently, if all players are equally skilled, the side that defends has a realistic huge advantage. So why should anyone who is trying to win attack.

The question is, would you truly have less fun playing games with the objective system I described?

Now, your MP league is an entirely different thing. As far as I know you have a campaign map, consecutive battles, casualties, reinforcements and such stuff. So in each battle you have to take these factors into account, whether a certain decision on the battlefield makes sense or not. You have to think more strategic and objectives may give your battles/campaigns a more realistic and/or historical feeling and the attacker an extra incentive to ultimately attack.

We don't have any of that yet.

I think more than to CoH we may compare the SOW combat system to STW or M2TW online.
I agree with your point on all the line but CoH has reinforcements because it's fantasy, here we play with historical OOBs and your idea to apply reinforcements to the side who's taking the objectives would mess that up.

Perhaps the best solution lies in handicaps... just like in the aforementioned games, players playing in defense generally don't use all their money to buy troops to give a chance to the attacker, especially on mountainous maps. GB is not so mountainous but the concept is the same because there are high ground and low ground. Probably we need a very complex system to allow as many options as possible (including reinforcements of course).

The dynamic campaign would be a great thing and probably not too hard to code. A scenario that evolves around the previous result taking into account losses, reinforcements, objectives taken (hence picking the next ones) and so on.

Well.. you know... this game has magnitude. On the long range nothing is impossible because there's vast margins of improvement and of new additions. None of the things I read in this thread would spoil the game. Perhaps polling would give a clue to Norb on what players think it would help most. You know... prioritizing things...

I wouldn't post a poll, discussions are much better. I would expect too many people would jump on the "it ain't broke don't fix it" bandwagon. No offense to the community here, this expectation is based on my broad experience with the internet as a whole.

The dynamic campaign would be a great thing and probably not too hard to code. A scenario that evolves around the previous result taking into account losses, reinforcements, objectives taken (hence picking the next ones) and so on.

Persistency between battles is infinitely more complex to create and especially to balance than a simple objective system that is independent in each battle. I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but it only took me a couple evenings to code and test this objective system in American Conquest. I worked on a campaign system but it wasn't going to be worth the investment if I was to make it good.

here we play with historical OOBs and your idea to apply reinforcements to the side who's taking the objectives would mess that up.

Yes, but the real issue is whether or not you gain a tangible advantage over time by holding objectives. In my game I used artillery ammunition which may be the best solution. If the attacker doesnt attack, the defender inevitably shoots his entire army with an infinite supply of ammunition over time, so the attacker must attack. What form this advantage comes in is not the real issue.

You know... prioritizing things...

Everyone would vote for a persistent campaign, because many people won't understand the time it would take to complete it compared to the other priorities.

I think more than to CoH we may compare the SOW combat system to STW or M2TW online.

Total War games fail online compared to CoH, for lots of reasons but one of which is the lack of any objective system. People camp all the time and it's boring. CoH on the other hand has a huge competitive multiplayer scene and tens of thousands of players. I prefer to look at the successes to see what works.

Civil War battles became very defensive. The game reflects this. Maybe in some way it can be organized where one side has an advantage in men. The one with the large force is the obvious aggressor. Fewer troops go on the defensive. Maybe the modders can work this out. Or maybe a way for some set up like in TC2M where the open play had uneven forces most of the time. I never minded this, I just went on the defensive with smaller force, then counter attacked. In this game designers went with more even battles. Damned if you do damned if you don't.
I am no expert, but this game is very realistic. They have done a real good job. Players will eventually develop, some to offensive tactics some only to defensive.

NY Cav