American Civil War FPS Concept

[SarcasmoPope]

I've had this idea for a Civil War game that could actually retain a Civil War atmosphere if it was done right.

There are human players on both teams, as well as about eight fucktonnes of NPC's on both. There is a ticket system, like in Battlefield, whenever someone is killed. When a side runs out of tickets, the army will rout, leading to "Post-Combat" (details later).

Combat would be first charging into battle. This would be melee oriented. There will be an initial clash between the main bodies of the two armies, in which a rifle-mounted bayonet is used. The player can also choose a place to take long distance shot from a forest or something.
I'm talking maybe a few hundred soldiers in close quarters combat, but also a stealth element is available. But so it isn't obvious who the players are, NPC's can attack from range as well.

Post-Combat would be a less chaotic game mode that takes place after a rout, where the winning team combs the battlefield for wounded or hiding enemies. The players on the losing side take over the body of a wounded soldier. The wounded soldier can take this opportunity to set a trap, like an explosive or something, and wait for an enemy to walk nearby so he can kill them. There are hundreds of bodies that can be controlled, and not all of them will be alive. It wouldn't be obvious. The wounded player would control their 1 working arm with the mouse, leaving it up to the player to remain undetected as they reach for an explosive or some other weapon.

What do you guys think?
I imagine in practice there would be processing issues with several hundred soldiers on a wide-open battlefield.

 

[Fappy]

The only Civil War game I have ever actually seen was a cheap console shooter made by the History Channel of all things. It was pretty funny because it was actually more efficient to just knife people than to shoot them.

You have a cool idea, but unfortunately we're only allowed to kill aliens/robots/nazis/russians/terrorists in war shooters.

 

[SarcasmoPope]

The only Civil War game I have ever actually seen was a cheap console shooter made by the History Channel of all things. It was pretty funny because it was actually more efficient to just knife people than to shoot them.

You have a cool idea, but unfortunately we're only allowed to kill aliens/robots/nazis/russians/terrorists in war shooters.

Oh yeah sorry I forgot. This is the 19th Century. The USA aren't the terrorists yet.

 

[Fappy]

The only Civil War game I have ever actually seen was a cheap console shooter made by the History Channel of all things. It was pretty funny because it was actually more efficient to just knife people than to shoot them.

You have a cool idea, but unfortunately we're only allowed to kill aliens/robots/nazis/russians/terrorists in war shooters.

Oh yeah sorry I forgot. This is the 19th Century. The USA aren't the terrorists yet.

Actually I suppose it would be kosher for a British developer to make an American Revolution game where you play the British trying to quell the "terrorists"

Points of view are so fun!

 

[countrysteaksauce]

So you basically want a game where you have a gun but don't really use it because "Combat would be first charging into battle. This would be melee oriented."

Hell just skip the middle man and make a medieval FPS. At least you get more choice other than a bayonet and a saber.

Btw, bayonets accounted for less than 1% of Civil War deaths so your melee dynamic seems out of place.

For added realism, your soldier gets a, let's say, 15% chance of dying from disease.

 

[SarcasmoPope]

There's a medieval FPS available on Steam.
I just thought it would be alright since it's not really been a theatre of war frequently visited by the FPS genre.
I was under the impression that, since soldiers weren't always well-trained, the guns weren't used that often as a ranged weapon and was realistic at least in that respect.
But I live in Australia, so all I have to go on in terms of history and death rates during the Civil War are what I learn from "Horrible Histories" magazines, so I don't exactly have a clear picture. I just thought it'd be a cool idea to not be a walking armory for once.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

The concept is just made difficult by the terrain, since most battles were fought outside of urban areas, and the weapons available. Sure, some soldiers had repeating rifles at that point, but most were equipped with inaccurate single shot weapons.

It would probably be more fun to be a cavalryman during the civil war game than a frontline grunt

 

[SarcasmoPope]

The concept is just made difficult by the terrain, since most battles were fought outside of urban areas, and the weapons available. Sure, some soldiers had repeating rifles at that point, but most were equipped with inaccurate single shot weapons.

It would probably be more fun to be a cavalryman during the civil war game than a frontline grunt

How I imagined it was Empire:Total War as an FPS.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

You can zoom into 1st person mode on that game, but you can't control the individual unit itself.

 

[SarcasmoPope]

You can zoom into 1st person mode on that game, but you can't control the individual unit itself.

I didn't know that. I stopped playing it because I wasn't able to use Marines during battles any more for some reason, my expansion stopped working. I have a hard-on for Marines.

 

[SilentCom]

The only Civil War game I have ever actually seen was a cheap console shooter made by the History Channel of all things. It was pretty funny because it was actually more efficient to just knife people than to shoot them.

You have a cool idea, but unfortunately we're only allowed to kill aliens/robots/nazis/russians/terrorists in war shooters.

There is also that game called "Darkest of Days" which had a sequence in the American Civil war. The game sucked btw.

Frankly, I think I would rather play a game based around WWI or some other war or time period not often done.

 

[Fappy]

The only Civil War game I have ever actually seen was a cheap console shooter made by the History Channel of all things. It was pretty funny because it was actually more efficient to just knife people than to shoot them.

You have a cool idea, but unfortunately we're only allowed to kill aliens/robots/nazis/russians/terrorists in war shooters.

There is also that game called "Darkest of Days" which had a sequence in the American Civil war. The game sucked btw.

Frankly, I think I would rather play a game based around WWI or some other war or time period not often done.

Why can't we see any war games between the 17th-19th centuries that ARE NOT RTS's? Someone explain this to me.

 

[Unborn023]

I like you're idea. If that game were to come to life I would hope it were a cross between metal gear and red dead redemption.

I'm not crazy about using muskets as my primary weapon so I would want it to be a bit more technologically advanced. I would also do things like employ players with squads of NPCs (something like star wars battlefield) that follow them and obey orders.

I would also want to do things like have mounted units (horseback, carriages, mounted cannons etc) with killable horses (a la red dead). To give them a nice advantage that can be taken away with proper planning. Something like leading your NPC unit into a wooded area high on a hill and command them to open fire on Calvary units.

But the more I play with your idea the more I see processing issues on the multiplayer scale.

But if I get the gist of it we're looking at a much more immerse form of a total war game.

 

[Unborn023]

So you basically want a game where you have a gun but don't really use it because "Combat would be first charging into battle. This would be melee oriented."

Hell just skip the middle man and make a medieval FPS. At least you get more choice other than a bayonet and a saber.

Btw, bayonets accounted for less than 1% of Civil War deaths so your melee dynamic seems out of place.

For added realism, your soldier gets a, let's say, 15% chance of dying from disease.

Let's not forget that much anticipated stray musket ball mechanic that we will come to know and love. How about the backfiring cannon gameplay. I'm drooling thinking about it.

 

[Unborn023]

The concept is just made difficult by the terrain, since most battles were fought outside of urban areas, and the weapons available. Sure, some soldiers had repeating rifles at that point, but most were equipped with inaccurate single shot weapons.

It would probably be more fun to be a cavalryman during the civil war game than a frontline grunt

How I imagined it was Empire:Total War as an FPS.

Funny how I said that before I read all the comments . I definitely see where you were going with this and I think it's possible but not for a very very very long time.

 

[ediblemitten]

THE THRILLING GAMEPLAY OF STANDING IN A TIGHT FORMATION WHILE ENGAGING ANOTHER RIGHT FORMATION SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET AWAY WITH A SLOW LOADING MUSKET!

Sorry, but 17-19th century warfare is awesome for RTS's, but that shit would not work well in a FPS. It would be boring and the accuracy of muskets means that if the game has any degree of realism, each volley from your regiment (Keep in mind if you aren't a skirmisher or rifleman during that period, you're line infantry) is only killing a couple of men if the regiments are engaging from range, and there is zero way of knowing if you even killed or hit anything. I could see an FPS using this warfare for a short, intense, almost cinematic sequence kind of cool, but an entire game or multiplayer section? No way.

 

[DustyDrB]

I'd play a RPG with shooter elements (like New Vegas) like that. Hell, I might even play a straight up first person shooter if they explored different periods and settings like this. Don't give me that "but the guns sucked" excuse. They can take creative liberties for the sake of the gameplay. I wouldn't be fussed over realistic weapons. I'd just like to explore those settings and the issues they faced.

 

[Elfgore]

I mean it could work. But it would be very challenging to make it work and make it work well. I really liked the post-combat ideas.