   Multiplayer War Server
  I''ve become interested in the idea of a virtual battlefield server that would allow client apps (FPS''s, flight sims, tank sims, political sims etc. to join and take part in a persistant virtual war. MPS''s Falcon 4 was a failed attempt at this idea and I would one day like to help (no way I could do it alone) with the creation of such a system. It should be totally generic, with an AI back-end that would make high-level decisions about the actions of each participating country and generate missions(along with routes, targets etc.) for the different client games that would help in winning the war. It would have to analize the current tide of war and decide whether it''s time to go offensive or defensive, organise resupplies, or when the war has been one.Of course it could become a MMOG, but I don''t believe this is THAT important. Being able to set up a persistant war on your home computer for up to 16 people to join (as different kinds of units, of course) would be awesome.Rendering of the world must of course be client-specific, the land battle games will need fancy grass and tree renderings, while flight sims only need basic representation. Imagine flying an F-16 through a valley towards a armoured column and knowing that one or two of the MANPAD soldiers are your buddies playing a Delta-Force type game on their way to defend a bridge from your other buddies on their way in a helicopter sim. The network inputs and outputs to the server must follow a standard so anyone could develop a game that hooks up to any server and play seamlessly.So, feel free to spew up ideas and designs here and maybe one day an organised open-source attempt can be made at this system.Christinysquishy developentAlso, check out my simple game engine system for indie gamedevers underway at tinysquishy.tripod.com  
  It''s called Battlefield 1942  But surely you must have heard of it... if you’re looking for the modern variation then there''s the excellent Desert Combat mod.  Combined warfare rocks =).  Now I know you mentioned a persistant world, I have mixed feelings about that, but we''ll see how Planetside turns out.Chapel;  Hahahahahha you just COMPLETELY described BattleField 1942 . And we''ll have to wait to see how PlanetSide turns out. It might be a big success or a big smash in the face.   ;  BattleField 1942 is an arcade game (cool one though), but this system must run an entire air, land and sea war for all invloved units across a potentially country sized theatre. It must be capable of running the backend for games ranging from arcade Delta Force type games through to hardcore military flight sims. I highly doubt the 1942 engine will do anything more than get a few hundred troops to a run for the red waypoints. It must have a mission generator that will create intelligent routes for land, sea and air units taking threats such as radar, populated cities and SAM sites into account. Decisions should be passed through a heirarchal system to ground troops through middle command from the executive orders at the top of the tree, and reports should filter back and be taken into account for the next set of tasks. In 1942, the AI runs for each unit only, I''m pretty sure their is no real team-AI at all.;  Actually you probably describe WW2Online.  ;  Oh well then, nevermind...  ;  I find the lack of enthusiasm troubling. What are the chances of a current commercial project having a simple open server architecture that allows massive future scalability and endless modification options. I don''t see this idea as a game product at all. It would be an SDK I guess, a platform to base a huge variety of games upon, allowing any new game built upon it from then on to talk with any current and future games to come. I envision a server only implementation, a boring console app, that any possible future game might connect to as long as it knows the (simple) protocol. I''m not a beginner biting off more than he can chew, I''m not even saying I or anyone will start this as a project now or any time soon, but I think it''s a great melting pot for ideas and stretching your design mind. I''m working happily on my terrain builder at the moment and thought it would be a nice diversion of thought every now and again. Does this topic not ignite a single flame of interest?Think of the instant advantages, you write a client app that displays the world only to provide local immersion, but it already has so many features included from the start, a huge potential player base, AI, missions (general gameplay tasks), the feeling of a more real game universe. I believe in 20 years time (maybe much sooner) this (and Solitaire) will be the only kind of game.;quote:Original post by AntiVeggieBoy    I find the lack of enthusiasm troubling.    Don't worry, if Mr. Bush read this forum, he would surely be very enthusiastic about this idea, as long as it featured the 'axis of evil' and 'old Europe'.RegardsMatt    Lead programmer at sechsta sinn - http://www.sechsta-sinn.com - mailto:matthias@sechsta-sinn.com[edited by - matthias6S on April 27, 2003 11:40:20 PM];  Hehe. We can simplify it further. Goodies, Baddies and Indecisive.I wonder what the description of each team would be in the "choose team" dialog ;  The question is, can you create enough quality sims and get enough people to buy them, to create this world?  That''s the real challenge.  Inevitably, some of the sims are going to do well, and others not as well.  If no one buys the tank sim, how is that going to effect the game.My money is on Planetside.  I really hope it succeeds 