NOTICE: This wiki is read-only. Rebuild 3's design phase is over and it's now released. Thank you for all your help!

World Map

From Rebuild 3 Ideas Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Sarah's Decisions

Sarahnorthway (talk) Pentagon hit it on the nose with his Detroit-Windsor map, although I think it's best to stick with randomly assigned names rather than a specific real life area. I'll still grab random names but try to associate them with appropriate population sizes.

  • Like the first two, Rebuild 3 will take place in generic Canmerican cities with random names
  • There will be an overmap with 20-30 cities of different sizes and Scenarios
  • They will start locked but unlock 2 or 3 at a time as you progress
  • Losing a game means you must start over fresh with the same random seed
  • The overmap will be roughly the scale of Pentagon's awesome fanart (below): one big city that has absorbed many smaller ones, plus suburbs.
  • You will be able to transfer starting characters from each city to the next
  • A lategame tech will let you transfer other resources & people from saved cities

Discussion: Country Breakdown

The percentage of people who play Rebuild is roughly:

  1. US - 61%
  2. UK - 15%
  3. Canada - 11%
  4. Australia - 6%
  5. Rest of the world combined - 7%

The temptation is high to make that North America because:

  1. The majority of Rebuild players are from the US
  2. It's where most classic zombie movies are set
  3. Has a wide range of climates - deserts, forests, mountains, wilderness, urban centers, snow

(RusMolot) Okay, my nick gives it away, but I have Russian heritage even though I live in the US, most people in the US have or have had relatives, ancestors, or themselves live/lived in a different country. Just because someone lives in the US does not mean they don't want to see BMW and Mercedes factories being overrun by zombies in Berlin, or cliche Soviet undead walking the streets with AK's hanging from their shoulders. My $.02

(Ramiro_ARG) I agree with RusMolot. I'm ARGentinian and I don't think that because most players are USA residents (I personally think American is mistaken, because America is an entire continent) that shouldn't mean the world map shall be in USA. Maybe it should be in a neutral place, I mean, no country is named, there are no characteristics trademarks, etc; or it shall be a random place in the world.

(bulldog97) How about random city generation so no one feels left out. Then make stories to go with the terrain. Let the player chose the overall terrain like dessert, moutain, jungle, exc... but have bonuses for these terrain. greater amount of survivors for greater danger, more water but less wood and so on. from the terrain you could let the player chose different t goals that go with that area. Like from a list with all the terrain and goals where you chose the map and goal, So that we chose the overall goals and the terrains that go with them.

(Fropps) Going along with what Ramiro said, it should be neutral, here's my argument, it's one year after the zom-pocalipse, what scraps of culture or maps will be left? Will names of cities survive? Will the culture and even the peoples view of the world change so much so that all categorization is irreverent? The people who have survived probably won't care anyway. Ahh... I've run out of steam, but hopefully you understand what I mean.

(Max24833 I completely agree with everyone here about neutral country, because otherwise, you're favoring 61% of people over 49% rather than a nice and equal random country thing. I mean, I'm from Ireland, and I'm not asking for the game to be set here, cause that would make it just my house, a church, a pub and sheep. At least with neutral countries, no one's left out.

Discussion: Location

If there's going to be a World Map, should it depict a specific part of the world? Vancouver Island?

(Woolfe) A little mental exercise I had one day on the hour long train trip home, was how something like rebuild might work on a real map, like say Google Maps. So actually pick a city in google maps then using the actual real view of the city to select buildings and areas that can be defended etc. Where I am, for example, there is a River splitting the town in 2 and a dogleg that makes a nice little section that would be easy to wall off. That sort of geography is cool, and doesn't tend to occur in created from scratch environments. Also you get some unique buildings etc, that have been constructed in ways that could be good or bad for the impending Z apocalypse.

Jamie the green sock (talk)

Having a HUGE World Map seems like it would be a lot of work and effort on your part.If you REALLY want multiple cities you could make maybe 3 islands close together that the player can name. Each island has one huge city on it with destroyed bridges that you can fix connecting them. You start off on the small one and go on the bigger one and then the biggest one. The difficulty gets harder as you progress. The Infected get harder to kill and increase in number with many more places being Infested. The other communities get harder to please,easier to irritate and much more aggressive. The World Map would just be a way to go from island to island and show the player what size their community and the other communities are. You could also have a Mini-Map focusing on whatever island you are on. It could be in the corner somewhere and when you click on it it brings up a map of whatever island you are on at that point and then you click anywhere on the map and your screen shows that area which makes scrolling easier if you want to go far away. Also, the islands would not be perfect squares so that gives you a way to have your city shapes more realistic and also a way for you to end the scrolling around the city in a way that makes sense,with the ocean,beaches,cliffs,forests and fields.

Miguelinileugim (talk)

A United States city seems fine, however instead of a real city you could just create your own.

Think of a horizontal city, with the size defined by the player, more or less in Kansas because of being connected by road (the sea would be a too ideal scape route) and plenty of weapons and food from neighbouring agricultural regions.

You know, the standard setting with a custom invented city, it's not like you have to innovate too much.

An island would be in the middle of the sea and relatively free of zombies, too easy the scape route and too easy to eliminate the zombies (unless you were in Hong Kong or something).

Loqman (talk)

World map

    • it is unreal if world is conquerable ! who can conquer the world in reality ? Solve : i think in making a bigger country researches are best option to make it available. First = research telegraph (becoming able to control one block away zones from capital) Second = research signals ( 9 block away from capital) third = capture radio station + research radio station (able to make country) forth = satellite (world Colonization)
    • world map is better because player feels more reality. there are 15-40 huge cities in the world and thats the only thing that matters (don't create village and small cities on the map it is unnecessary ! if one huge city is conquered there will be 10 cities available after and thousand village and small towns are available more . city can have a percentage of being safe from attacks and if city is green it means there are no threats for huge city ... and players simply can't conquer every city because the main person has age and if he dies game is over and score and wait for rebuild 4 :D and player should start again and try to win cities smart and fast.


What about being able to choose your start location? Have a map of the US with selectable cities in different regions. Cities in different regions would have different seasnoal bonuses and hazards. For example, a city in the north like Boston or New York on the east coast, and portland on the west, would have lower farm production, but reduced zombie attacks in the winter. Florida cities would have high production year-round, but be subject to major storm damage in the Fall.

Discussion: City Names

Rebuild 2 had a bunch of cities from Canada specifically BC. Expand that to cities from all over the world?

Maybe the map for Rebuild 3 is the west coast of North America, and you're moving from the safeish east to the wild, wild west. Parallels to frontier towns, cowboy days, Oregon trail. But there need to be other established factions moving west with you...?

Or could be best to leave it generic or random, people do like naming their cities after all.

It might be good to consider a final goal, such as a significantly difficult area to control on the other side of the map or a randomly hidden city or cache you're trying to find. It could give people a reason to expand and explore.

Also, could there be physical barriers like mountains? What about a faction on an island or in a deep forest?

(Spartan7126) You could have large countries or groups of countries and you can navigate between the major cities of these countries?

(Deadzflame) Your right seymour it would make other countries feel left out and this game is for every body around the world not just North America. Maybe have it picking a random city pysical bariers would be good like mountains and fast flowing rivers..but rivers could be passes with boats... Wait i just got a great idea maybe you could pick your county from Canada America ect. So when you pick it gives you a random place in that country.It might be hard to get every country though might be hard... Naming might be the best option here.... Deep forests and islands sound nice, might have to find a way to get it so theres a end to the map though....

(SeymourG) You COULD make it start with the character fleeing the heavily-populated New York, headed across the US, searching for a safe haven in each city, eventually heading for Los Angeles or something where some safe haven was established, and it's our job to clear the way for all who wish to join.

The Fantastic Michael Preston (talk) However, that might make European players and other nations feel left out. Maybe it could be across the world, but once you're in the ocean, you might as well stay there, so that'd be a bit stupid unless you had a damn good scenario to go on to propel you to head for land (must be some scary sh*t).

(Matthew) How about just making it so that you can select a continent at the start of the game and then just have a few major cities then fill in the rest with minor ones but other then the name changes everything would be the same.

(Zach) What if you take the idea of moving from city to city, and make it a mission to free as many cities as possible, and each city you beat, the difficulty ramps up? By the time a player could free an entire continent, it would be incredibly challenging.

(Mike F) I love the idea that you could start with a country with main cities to hit. You could even have them all work in tandem, and jump back and forth between each city. Maybe you could have a setting where a city would autoplay without you according to your parameters. Like, while I'm gone, everybody should scout and do schooling in DC, while in Boston, I could have more hands on killing. Up closer to the winter parts, just set everybody to scout and forage for food.

(Angel Demon) Well you know you can develop it into a sim game like Cities XL or Anno 2070 then make it so that there is one safe country and you're trying to win the world back by attacking. You could make it so that you can manage it like make tech trees and an economy, or even an election system. Then add in infrastructure and make it into a full scale sim game.

(Jaashpi) An idea that I had is the different cities be like levels, with different difficulties/scenarios, with major cities in each "major" country, with cities like Tokyo, NYC, Boston, Philidelphia, London, Paris, etc... and the size determination would be based on how big the city is. The blocks could also be determined by the city, with random placements. I think that the cities that you save should be zombie-free areas, like they have historically been. @Angel Demon I don't like the idea of government and politics in the game, because I feel that would be a separate game. Rebuild is about striking back against the zombies.

(Anthiena) Randomized sets of names? Like, there could be sets that correspond to tilesets that have various issues, such as Japan having a shit ton of people and not as much land to run on-and so high zombie rate, et cetera, et cetera. Mostly, it could be cosmetic changes but it would at least add variety. Keep each set of names to different things. Though having to fight a government remnant or have it join you would be greatly interesting/ironic. See the second part of the Emberverse novels on one version of that. Plus weirdness.

(Tonywup) There should be like a world map with some major cities on it (like NYC, Tokio, London) and some other areas, with bonuses for them. so in a city there could be many survivors, in a farmland farms gain a bonus food every day, in a industrial area there is lots of equipment to be found and so on. And I would like the possibility to control multiple bases at once because I don't like the idea of that the game is over when you control all of the map.

I think we should kind of figure out what the word 'Rebuild' actually means. We can go with the actual definition as per the dictionary. 1. to make, construct, or form again: the cost of rebuilding the house 2. ( tr ) to restore (a system or situation) to a previous condition: his struggle to rebuild his life

Well since this game is about a rebuilding civilization in the midst of a zombie apocalypse, and the third game will probably be set 10-20 years after the initial outbreak i don't think any survivor will care or remember most city names, it would make more sense if it was randomised.

Or we can define it ourselves. To me Rebuild as far as the game goes, means to start over. Yes you might be able to slowly pick up where life halted due to the zombies, but overall you still have to start over. So why not break the world up into continents, that way there are 7. Then break up each continent into segments. Such as with the U.S. you have the East Coast, MidWest and then West Coast. Maybe you have hints at this was New York City, or San Diego. But when it comes down to it, that stuff is forgotten. The history of the country will become lost and fragmented, cities, counties, states, whatever will become lost to time. All this will be done in an effort to restart or rebuild.

(Wizzid) From there you can continue to move on trying to either free the country or the world from zombies and other factions. Maybe make it kind of like Risk in a way. Of course you are not going to really see zombies from England invading other countries, but this gives the game a some extended playability. Instead of starting a new city each time you want to play, you can have a base of operations to continue from. If you free/control your continent you get an ending while controlling the world will grant you a special ending and since there have been quite a few people who have tried to 'Rule the world' you can be the first to have done so successfully.

(SeymourG) But think about it Wiz, zombies aren't organized (Unless we go with my scenario where they are. But that's different). Zombies can go into hordes, but it's not like they can intelligently for themselves up and stay in one place.

(DragoonIII) I honestly belive that this should not change it gives people free roam and the the ablity to create thier own cities or pick the city they were born in or raised ,etc.

(jesa)We should a worldwide map so can different like my country Indonesia is never winter or Russia the country almost look like always winter like that, so other nation player can survive their own city rather than someone from russia want in russia city with same weather rather all is american than we name own city like Jakarta but that a winter that stupid can good

I like that campaign mode idea: There can be two game modes: Quick Game, where difficulty+size is chosen much like the first two rebuilds but then players can not take their characters to new cities, and then a Campaign mode where players can take their characters to new cities, but then must battle across a randomly generated continent, kind of like Dice Wars (

In Campaign mode, players would start with Easy/Small(ish) cities then move across to larger and harder cities with the aim to conquer the continent, using the same base of characters and maybe having some sort of push-pull between individual cities. Harder cities should also "push back" once that city is breached. What I mean is that if the player is still in the small/easy cities, than the Nightmare difficulty cities wont start attacking their havens, but once the player tries to start a colony in that city, that city is able to respond and actively beseige a formerly "Easy" or "Medium" difficulty cities and crank it up to Hard or Nightmare, and keep it up even if the colony is lost. In this way, the difficulty can ramp up much like in the other games.

Factions like the Bikers can figure in by making it easier or harder to move people/supplies between cities. This can create a scenario much like Rebuild 2: Players can trade food/fuel/characters for continued safer access. Minor note: Changing city names as you desire was neato, please keep that in.

Loqman (talk)

i think easy and difficult should be the players decision among the game : taking a city in the far long place and in between unconquered city is a nightmare and taking city in a green zone is easy (a zone that is cleared from armies of zombies ) if you read my idea about world map there are thousands of small town or medium town around a huge city and taking an amount of them makes the zone green and safe ! scouting one city reduces difficulty of conquering from impossible to very hard , clearing zombies arround makes very hard to hard , researching makes hard normal , and making war council reduces normal to easy. but none of these change risk of capturing area

and world map doesn't needs much concentration ! conquering huge city means conquering an state or region and options will be available after that on the region . for winning the game in world map i have an idea ,research and capture and start an oil rig factory then research and capture and start an Refinery makes player win because with fuel world can start building up again

Idea: Growth and Danger Levels

Wizzid (talk) Smaller colonies draw less attention from zombies but draw more attention from rogue factions. The bigger you become, the stronger you become, however it will also bring new threats. Instead of fighting only factions, now you are seeing more and more zombies attacking your gates.

Batch: Linking Cities

The ability to link 2+ cities together via combined resources, survivors, etc. should be included. If you are truly going for the feel that you are "rebuilding civilization", this should be a must-have option. I know for a fact that in Rebuild 2 it crossed my mind many times that I just wanted to swap my characters back and forth between saves, for a penalty. Say, high risk for attack and death in addition to the cities being "far" away from each other, i. e. just takes a week or so (in-game) for the people to move back and forth. This is almost like the post above ^^^^^^^ just slightly modified and revised. Also, there could be some benefits like joint defense in which if one city is attacked there is a bonus from the neighboring and connected cities.

In another post people have mentioned docks, these would be good ways for transportation and they would need fuel.

(loqman) if there are fuel then it means no apocalypse has happened because how oil rigs and refineries do their job ? transportation should be hard for players because after the problem of no fuel there is a problem of hazardous road and etc !

and player should concentrate on capturing cities not on ruling nation because that is not the point of game and trading stuff should be hard in order to make game more real

Idea: Permanence of Cities, Characters

Spacesoon I love the idea of a localized world map along the lines of Pentagon's proposal (it's awesome, go Winsoit!). However, what really hooked me in Rebuild 2 is the sense of permanence you get from being able to carry the same few characters between cities from map to map. What I missed was the ability to save old "rebuilt" cities. Therefore, I have the following ideas for your consideration. I should note, I'm not fully clear on what decisions you have made about what (if anything) transfers from campaign to campaign, so maybe I'm suggesting things you have already thought about and dismissed, so apologies if this is the case. My understanding however is that a full campaign would be something like the map area proposed by Pentagon.

  • Once a city is created, it continues to exist until it is destroyed by zombies. But its location continues to exist, so you always have the option to bring back more people to try to rebuild it again. You just might find that there are no survivors (or food) left. Or perhaps some of the people who were in the city during the final stand escaped, but now are scattered, shell-shocked, and super-difficult to convince to rejoin "civilization" for a second try. Thus, whether it is a sub-part of a metro-area or an entire metro-area, the cities keep existing (whether as individual save files or part of one massive save file I think doesn't matter), and can be revisited by survivors from other cities, or send survivors to other cities. Of course, if they send away survivors, those survivors are then gone from the city, which might make it difficult for the city to continue to exist.
  • In this mode, a city keeps functioning when not actively being played--e.g., time passes. However, it is either left in a "stable" state if "rebuilt", or in a "withering" state if not rebuilt, which might suggest that it might need saving at a later date (people might need to be evacuated, a rescue team might be needed to fight off a massive zombie horde, it might be running out of food, etc.). Conversely, the goal of most cities is to rebuild them to a point at which they are "stable".
  • To allow multiple human beings IRL to play the game, create player identities. Different cities created by different players can coexist in the same "world" (perhaps at the player's choice?), but survivors/equipment can only be traded back and forth with the permission of both players, and transfers are final (the giving player loses the survivor they trade to the receiving player). Perhaps have the rule that each player identity can only have one (to 5?) active games at a time, which means any created city that is not active is having time pass and possibly withering until it can be saved by survivors from the current active city.
  • There should be two types of travel. Travel between locations within a campaign (travel between places in the greater detroit/windsor area) and travel between campaign locations (travel between Winsoit and Chi-town). The former could probably be accomplished by small squads walking/in cars/whatever. The latter would require a caravan to provide safety in numbers, equipment, supplies such as food, etc., and to work would need automobiles, a source of gas, etc. Perhaps caravan-traveling could be a mini-game of fighting off zombies and scavenging for supplies, and accidentally discovering other outposts (semi-stable) that could be the location/start of new games/campaigns. Caravan travel is the *only* way to get people from one campaign to another, including between different players. And for the commandos, they are a caravan of one that cannot carry all the supplies they need. Hopefully they're good at scavenging and dodging zombies. :)
  • Keeping in mind travel restrictions, any survivor can travel between any location. It's just they might need to join a caravan to survive, and it will take them some time.
  • Old cities can be reactivated (likely due to player choice) by having a catastrophe happen. This could be discovery by a large zombie horde that needs to be defeated, internal sabatoge that needs to be fixed, a new faction moves into their territory and poses a threat, Godzilla, etc. Ok, maybe not Godzilla, but you get the picture. Maybe even this can start a new campaign.

Batch: Shape of the city

(Saruking) i found it odd that a city would be shaped into a square or block shape. i mean i know many city that are long or shape oddly. ( like two blocks of building sticking out but still part of the city.)

Sarahnorthway (talk) I definitely like the sound of random-shaped cities although technically not sure how I'll accomplish it yet. I'll post more in Scenarios

In the same line of thought: How about the bigger the city the more dangerous? More Z, different challenges. You mention different scenarios so here's my piece of idea: The big cities have challenges attached to some of their key buildings: In NYC, it could be getting the Empire State, or in Toronto the CN tower- taller buildings could also add security by puting a watch there. Some building will be good for morale (art gallery? Tourist building?) the same way you use bars and churches.

You could start the game with some Shithole, Alabama, and as you progress, the cities become larger, therefore harder.

Maybe also you could map them through google maps or something so that you can actually add real buildings, real-location hospitals, schools, police stations.

Hacatu (talk) I love the random-shaped city idea. I don't know if this is helpful, but I made a random map generator demo in javascript. Different buildings could generate based on the distance from the starting blocks or based on the number of buildings already generated.

Prutton (talk) I think big cities shouldn't have farms and forests. Instead, they should have squares that could be rebuilt into farms. That would make the game harder in metropolitan scenarios, making scavenge more important in big cities. That sounds realistic.

Batch: Globe map

I think it should be a globe map. It should be able to see all the cities you have been in. You should be able to move your troops or survivors. will take few days. So if you are running low on food in one city and lot of food in another, you can move food from the back line to front line. It would be a world campaign.

If you go with a world campaign, and the original city begins expanding into other cities, certain existing areas could be highlighted as goals. Wouldn't you like to reclaim Mount Rushmore? Maybe work towards reclaiming the Library of Congress before the zombies accidentally burn it down? St. Peter's Basilica would be nice to have, even if you do have to make defensive modifications to it.

You should be able to start anywhere in the world like-

Start in the U.S. Start in Australia. Start in America. Start in Bririn. Start in France.

And even more locations!

Prutton (talk) I think you should make the game based in a single country, then you could sell new skins to reshape the buildings. If you think about making skins to the game, you can release different skins to different locations. I think chinese and indian buildings would be awesome.

Loqman (talk)

i think if you just make a clean map of the world and point eight important places on the world that would be enough ! other things can be shown in each of their menu. what i mean is map can be totally simple !

Batch: World Map

Pentagon (talk)

So, let's face it: Having a single, square city, with literally no story is a tad boring, and only really works for flash games. RIII, will be a downloadable Steam title, yes? So it deserves a giant world to thrive in. I decided to make a piece of "fan-art" to show my idea:


As you can see, it's based around the Metro Detroit-Windsor region, and on the map of several points of interest. "National Guard", "The Basilica", and "Frenchtown" are examples of this. In-game, you would have an accessible world map that can be used for supply runs in different cities, warfare, caravan runs, and exploration. A few factions call specific locations home, such as The Riffs in The Citadel, The Final Judgement gang in The Basilica, and your band of survivors in The Stronghold. Every location has it's own grid-map, with major cities (The Stronghold, The Basilica, The Citadel, National Guard, etc) having traditional grid-square city blocks with added borders and special blocks for landmarks/walls/barracks (Cathedral in The Basilica, for example). Once the player takes over all 30 or so grid squares in The Stronghold, he/she can move on outside and conquer randomly generated grid squares all around Metro Detroit and Windsor (Let's just call it Detropolis, much shorter).

Batch: Complexity

Miguelinileugim (talk)

There are four three possibilities to design the game according to the number of levels:

  • Unique city: As in Rebuild 1 and 2, only one city, only one level
  • Tutorial city + Unique city: The same but with a (skippable) mini-city to learn the basics
  • Campaign: Up to three different levels, being the first one a tutorial, the second an introduction with a small city (or with a easy-and-quick to achieve objective) and a third with a big/huge city where the most important part (and complex) part of the game is
  • Evolution: Ever played Spore? Pretty much the same. 3-5 levels with the same city-building gameplay but where the "ending" you get in each one affects the next. For example:
    • Level 1 (Skippable tutorial)
    • Level 2 Save the survivors (+5 survivors, plot branch)
    • Level 3 Long term strategy (can develop cure, plot branch, harder)
    • Level 4 Develop cure (Happy ending)
    • Level 1 (Skippable tutorial)
    • Level 2 Save the supplies (+100 food, +10 weapons, plot branch)
    • Level 3 Short term strategy (can't develop cure, +500 food, +50 weapons, plot branch, easier)
    • Level 4 Exterminate zombies (Happy ending)

Feel free to choose the number of the levels and the complexity in this last option, but I think that a humanitarian vs utilitarian decision in the first choice, a short vs long term decision in the second and a cure vs extermination decision is the most balanced option.

(Of course, the humanitarian long term cure research strategy is way harder than the utilitarian short term extermination strategy, but you know, that's for hardcore players (this way you won't even have to make difficulty levels).

Xiaolaoshu (talk) I like the sound of that. The previous games are a bit anti-climactic after some research is done and food is reliable long before the city is secured. Scaling might be a nice pick up with each level having a different set of challenges. Either that or add some scaled achievements like 10, 100, 500 survivors or zombie kills or something.

Batch: Infinite World Map/Country map layouts

Hiya! I shared this with Sarah a long while ago, but I'll repost it here anyway. It's my idea for infinite maps, as some map layout (though the latter seems to have been solved!) I will copy/paste the block of text I first submitted:


to explain, imagine each square there is a medium map on it's own. the blue represents water, the red, a zombie-infested area, the yellow, a zombie area you're currently fighting in, and green is conquered/zombiless. my thoughts are, if you could let the user scroll between these maps seamlessly, this larger map would allow users to oversee what they have and haven't taken over. it would play on the user's feelings of progression, by seeing the land, not as infinite, but another large square on a much bigger goal of taking back the entire island. they'd also be able to go across rivers if they took control of a port perhaps taking some food storage they expend per tile. and, if there are factions, you could also colour those squares in a faction's colour.

the image is, obviously, a test of concept. but if I believe it'd be pretty good to motivate users to keep playing. it would expand users from being bored in one game, to keeping them interested over the course of a few weeks to take over whole "continents". you could also expand this into scenarios. say, take control of maps, shaped like real-life islands. like reclaiming the UK at easy, then tackling larger targets as you progress, such as the USA or russia, like I show in the picture.

Personally, I'd love a game where you are expected to play it over the course of a few weeks, and not a few hours. But, that's just me :P


Edit: I have tried multiple times, but I give up trying to make the image smaller. I can't make it a simple link for some reason! :/ --Kizzycocoa 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Miguelinileugim (talk) Well, I think that most things in life are better with intensity instead of quantity, an option of hyper-hyper-hyper hardcore players to play nigh-infinitely might be a good idea, but most players would prefer to play in super-nightmare in a medium/small map than in easy in a super-huge map.

I prefer to be play and fail 10 times in nightmare, learning every time, than finding no opposition in a looong huuuge game. Is just not as rewarding.

(loqman) this is really cool if you made it this way ! but i had an idea of huge city that would made game much more real in strategy plan

Note: Infinite cities

Sarahnorthway (talk)

I've had a few requests for one gigantic local map that contains multiple urban centers surrounded by rural fields. The world map would then be a minimap for ease of getting around. This would require a lot of thought and design so I'm noting it here for later thinks.

(loqman) i think that is unnecessary ! just 8 huge city centrals needed to be captured in order to end game ( Washington whole north america , Brasilia south america , London europe , Ahvaz (world's oil and gas) middle east , Moscow north asia , shanghai south asia , Canberra australia Johannesburg africa )

and other options can be automatically . Roads are just in between these 8 cities and only design of that matters ! but others can be in menu of the each city .


Accepted idea: Custom scenario and free-play

Vanstrom After playing the "story mode" it would be great if you could freeplay after the game in a sandbox, same game but without some special events. Maybe some extra customization (that is, variables that are set to "default" in the "story mode").

Sarahnorthway (talk) There will be a sandbox mode with full options, probably available from the beginning although it's kind of a cool idea to make it a reward for beating the game. I'm going to need to write one for testing anyway, so misewell share it.

Miguelinileugim (talk) Cool, but please no game editor, unless you can actually let players create their own campaigns with special random events and plot.

Personal tools