Add a Territory Campaign Mode Inspired by Rising Storm 2: Vietnam

Under considerationby One · 02 Sept

Add a persistent campaign mode in which two teams compete for control of territories across a strategic map. Before each battle, the attacking team could vote on which available territory to assault. The selected map would then be played with one team attacking and the other defending, with the result determining who controls the region. Teams could alternate roles between battles as the campaign progresses. A complete campaign could span multiple matches and end when one side captures enough territory or reaches a defined victory condition, giving individual matches a larger strategic purpose.

3 comments

Arrowhead (Slice)09 Sept
I was thinking of posting my dynamic campaign/persistent war suggestion and found your suggestion while I was going through current list so I’ll add what I have in mind here. BodyCam Dynamic persistent campaign The key is that the campaign isn’t a sequence of predetermined missions. Instead, the server maintains a persistent state. For example: Campaign: Battle for the Region * Team A controls Town Alpha * Team B controls Town Bravo * Team C controls Airfield * Team D controls Supply Depot Every team can receive or create objectives such as: * Capture a town * Destroy an enemy radar * Escort supplies * Defend an installation * Capture a bridge * Destroy ammunition * Establish a forward operating base * Rescue/escort an NPC * Cut an enemy supply route If Team C accomplishes something that wasn’t originally expected by the developers, the campaign state changes anyway. The important part: persistence more in the next comment…..
Arrowhead (Slice)09 Sept
Cont. 2 Suppose Team A captures a bridge tonight. The server records: Bridge controlled by Team A Tomorrow, the bridge is still controlled by Team A. Team B can then launch an operation to take it back. You could even have: Day 1 Team A captures the bridge. Day 2 Team A uses the bridge to move supplies. Day 3 Team B destroys the supply depot. Day 4 Team A has limited ammunition because of the previous attack. Day 5 Team B launches a major offensive. That creates a living war rather than a collection of disconnected matches. And yes, it can be open-ended This is probably the most interesting part. Instead of: “Complete Mission 1 → Mission 2 → Mission 3” you have: Campaign objectives + world state + player actions = next situation No need for bigger maps. Missions can happen in small maps and end in small maps. But maps is also big enough for it to be realistic. Next mission map can have a small part of the last map the team has been in. Thank you very much!
Arrowhead (Slice)09 Sept
Cont. 3 you have: Campaign objectives + world state + player actions = next situation The developers establish the rules, not necessarily the exact outcome. IF team controls 3 of 5 towns THEN unlock strategic advantage IF ammunition depot destroyed THEN team supply decreases IF airfield captured THEN drones become available (could limit quantity) IF bridge destroyed THEN supplies won’t come (you’ll get stuck with what ammunition you have) IF commander completes objective THEN new operation becomes available That means any team could potentially accomplish something significant.