ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort
If you have ever played World of Warcraft with a "pick-up group" (a randomly gathered group of people assembled for a particular goal), then you might not use the word "interesting" when talking about the "personalities in your unit." [;)] That basically keeps people coming back, but it is the "terrain you interact with" that initially draws people in.
What you both seem to be depicting is a game that utilizes the "clan" format seen in games like Guild Wars or the old Mechwarrior clans. Unfortunately, this style of game does not appeal to everyone (I hate guilds in games) and unless you have the game randomly assign the player to the same guild/clan/unit, each time they log in, then you are not going to get that group dynamic out of the box. Besides, all of these concepts are VERY old concepts for wargaming (gaming clans have been in existence since very early days) and thus represent the past and present of wargaming, as well as the future. I simply do not see how a persistent world wargame would work, random map generation for each map is no different than internet, LAN, or hot-seat games already being played. Making it a real time unit/squad based game turns it into an FPS, like the Battlefield series, and online WEGO is already being done. RTS tend to be more casual than tactical, so I can't see that working either.
The best idea I have seen in a long time is Stardock's Society, but this seems a long way off from actually being done. Still, it is more RTS than tactical wargaming.
You're talking about a completely different genre of game than what is being discussed here. I'm simply referring to the act of playing something like Panzer Command or Combat Mission online with multiple players per side, in a campaign-type environment in which individual scenarios are linked within the framework of an overall geographic locality. Each battle would have an effect on the next, but the environment isn't a "real time" environment - it doesn't persist when there are no players there. You play a scenario to completion, and the results are then calculated on the "world", after which the next phase is started. Campaigns would have set goals and objectives, all terrain would be knowable to both groups, and resource allocation would be up to players designated as senior commanders. This stuff is already happening - manually - in meta campaigns by enthusiasts. Most such campaigns fail to develop due to internal conflicts or logistical burdens in just keeping the system going and trying to interface the info in the system with the manual campaign system.
and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
