Gameplay modes

I've not played Mordheim before, can anyone tell me what kind of gameplay modes were in that (and presumably are likely to be in Necromunda too)?

I'm hoping for some single player campaigns for the various houses / factions, a skirmish mode with gang development, and a multiplayer territory war.

Well, Mordheim has the regular campaign and the a Skirmish mode. of course we can expect a campaign with each different house and a Skirmish mode, but a Multiplayer mode would be a quite nice and excellent addition.

The main gripe with the single player campaign is that missions offer not much variety (except story missions). I just hope they spice the mission types following the TT model and mix it up with the gang war element.

There is so much more they can do with the game modes - I think that the reason why we didn't see more in Mordheim, was because it is a small company and their resources were limited.

Again, for the devs, YakTribe Gaming has an abundance of resources in this regard:
https://yaktribe.org/community/vault/categories/scenarios.5/?prefix_id=1

@glarghface said in Gameplay modes:

Well, Mordheim has the regular campaign and the a Skirmish mode. of course we can expect a campaign with each different house and a Skirmish mode, but a Multiplayer mode would be a quite nice and excellent addition.

The main gripe with the single player campaign is that missions offer not much variety (except story missions). I just hope they spice the mission types following the TT model and mix it up with the gang war element.

I guess one of the problems in single player is that part of it is tutorial, and the story missions need to feel special so they can't have regular single player missions follow the same format, which restricts what mission types can be used.

Having said that, there are a lot of different mission types from the old Necromunda, and hopefully some new ones will come out of the new Necromunda, so ideally there should be plenty of mission variety.

@game-knight said in Gameplay modes:

There is so much more they can do with the game modes - I think that the reason why we didn't see more in Mordheim, was because it is a small company and their resources were limited.

Again, for the devs, YakTribe Gaming has an abundance of resources in this regard:
https://yaktribe.org/community/vault/categories/scenarios.5/?prefix_id=1

That's a very nice selection of missions there, thanks for the link.

With regards to game modes I was thinking about how you link all those missions together.

So for single player you have a story that takes you from one scripted mission to the next.

With skirmish you get a random / chosen mission against another gang of (hopefully) equal strength.
There's the opportunity to have gang progression with Skirmish, so you can unlock things or level up your gang as you play more, but skirmish games tend to be very much one off games.

A multiplayer campaign is probably the most difficult to put into the game, especially for a small team, but would be the most like the Necromunda campaigns from tabletop, that in my opinion were the most fun. It would inevitably pit gangs of unequal strength against each other, but give the weaker gang various advantages such as selecting the mission or rewards in order to try and balance things.
This type of game mode could be expanded to feature dynamic mission types, so imagine that you've selected a raid against your opponent, things go really well for you and it could turn into a territory grab, things go badly for you and it might end up being an extraction trying save your wounded gang leader.

@twenytpence
The problem i had with the story missions was the map, which was way too different than the regular maps and the infinite stream of enemies that will constantly come to annoy you. But the best thing about them and what made them so special was one simple thing: objectives.

Regular missions in Mordheim consisted only in pummeling the enemy warband into the dirt and maybe pick warpstone. But clear objectives actually made the story missions way more special. In Necromunda there are many missions like this where you have to complete a very specific objective, like stealing a shipment of ore, destroying a weapons caché or a water depo.

I really want that some of the normal missions have specifical objectives that if you complete, you win the mission aside the usual "make the enmy warband rout".

@glarghface
I have to agree, I've always loved games where you need to achieve the objective despite a superior opposition.

I'd also like to see more games where you need to achieve the objective then extract afterwards, because that changes it from throwing everything in on a suicide mission, to a true tactical challenge.

@twenytpence
I talked about this in another thread with another user and i gave a suggestion to make missions simple, but at the same time make them better than in Mordheim: Have offensive missions or raids, defensive missions and exploration missions.

The first two are simple: in offensive missions you have a clear objective when you attack the territory of an enemy gang and escalate the offensive until a certain decisive mission where you drive them out and you claim the turf from them. In these missions you have a clear objective: destroy a water depo, blow up a weapons caché, reach a mineshaft, etc... and the enemy gang will have to fight you in order to defend the objective and rout your gang.

I also added that if you complete the objective, you win the mission instantly but you get less loot than if you made the enemy gang rout. I explain that this is mainly because you didn't destroy the objective and thus, you can use said objective. For example, if you steal the weapons instead of blowing them up, you might get gear for your gang. If you don't blow up the water depo, you might sell the water and get a bit of money. I want to add this to make players consider during battle if they should use the advantage they have to get greedy and steal the objective instead of destroying it.

Defensive missions are quite self explanatory: the role is reversed and you have to prevent an enemy gang from fulfilling the objective. In this scenarios i really want to have introduced the use of screamers and stummers as some sort of alarm that will give you the rough indication of where the enemy might be.

Meanwhile, in exploration missions we return to the mordheim formula: random runs in the search for gear and goods to sell and you happen to run into an enemy gang. This missions should be totally random since they are temporary opportunities to get stuff for your gang, like archeotech (very valuable loot) and some hidden weapon storages.

I think this would spice up the mission variety a bit as long as they use the mission scenarios we have in Necromunda, which are really good.

Multiplayer mode should be separate from Singleplayer warbands - a dedicated PvP system should be in place with matchmaking and ratings (that actually reflect the warband strength).

Necromunda could become an e-sport - if it is done properly.

@game-knight said in Gameplay modes:

Multiplayer mode should be separate from Singleplayer warbands - a dedicated PvP system should be in place with matchmaking and ratings (that actually reflect the warband strength).

Necromunda could become an e-sport - if it is done properly.

Specially if the add the whole "Complete an objective to win the mission". That would make the battles quite tense, to be honest

Eh, too many games these days are trying to become an e-sport, and it limits too many of their mechanics because they wouldn't work well for the e-sport arena. Ah, this is just me grumbling because I don't care much for multiplayer (unless it's co-op), yet I see games I'm interested in bend over backwards (or even break their back) trying to cater to multiplayers.

What I've discussed is that I hope that Territory control will be a key feature of the single player, be represented with in-game maps, and have different modes relating to it. For me the ideal in this regard are defensive actions, offensive actions, and setup missions. Offense would include raiding or conquering territory, with perhaps conquering being the Primary Objective and raiding being a Secondary. What I mean by this is say you're trying to take control of a water tank, if you can seize the area and drive off the defenders then you conquer the zone. However if the defenders are winning you can try for a lesser victory and try to destroy the tank, denying it to your enemies, which would be raiding. Defense is pretty straightforward, the enemy tries to do the same to you, though the question of how many gangers you get, how reinforcement would work, etc is a harder question. Then my own idea for setup missions are offensive actions that take place in enemy territory to bypass some of the defenders defenses. For example there's a walled settlement that's well defended, a potential setup mission would be an access point to the air vents, the setup mission is you try to reach the vents, if you do then those gangers get to drop into the settlement past the walls and attack from the inside. Others would be sewers, or perhaps blowing something up so the defenders send some of their forces away from the settlement to investigate.

Generally the theme for this is that I personally want game modes to represent a more strategic aspect of the game centered around territory control. Mordhiem was tactical, what I want would be for those points on the map to matter beyond being random mission selections. Keep a bit of the randomness, but add in purpose. Although they should keep random missions in No-Man's-Land so not everything is related to territory, sometimes you just want a gang fight, ambush, or scavenging run.

@detortor said in Gameplay modes:

What I've discussed is that I hope that Territory control will be a key feature of the single player, be represented with in-game maps, and have different modes relating to it. For me the ideal in this regard are defensive actions, offensive actions, and setup missions. Offense would include raiding or conquering territory, with perhaps conquering being the Primary Objective and raiding being a Secondary. What I mean by this is say you're trying to take control of a water tank, if you can seize the area and drive off the defenders then you conquer the zone. However if the defenders are winning you can try for a lesser victory and try to destroy the tank, denying it to your enemies, which would be raiding. Defense is pretty straightforward, the enemy tries to do the same to you, though the question of how many gangers you get, how reinforcement would work, etc is a harder question. Then my own idea for setup missions are offensive actions that take place in enemy territory to bypass some of the defenders defenses. For example there's a walled settlement that's well defended, a potential setup mission would be an access point to the air vents, the setup mission is you try to reach the vents, if you do then those gangers get to drop into the settlement past the walls and attack from the inside. Others would be sewers, or perhaps blowing something up so the defenders send some of their forces away from the settlement to investigate.

Generally the theme for this is that I personally want game modes to represent a more strategic aspect of the game centered around territory control. Mordhiem was tactical, what I want would be for those points on the map to matter beyond being random mission selections. Keep a bit of the randomness, but add in purpose. Although they should keep random missions in No-Man's-Land so not everything is related to territory, sometimes you just want a gang fight, ambush, or scavenging run.

We discussed this very well and extensively in the turf war thread. A pity nobody joined, because the ideas we shared are really nice and i think they need to be worked up on in order to get more or less a good balance.

For example, i said that after one of your offensive actions against another gang gets thwarted you cannot attack the same gang for 2 days because you have to plan again your offensive and reorganize your gang. Same can be said if an enemy gang gets driven out of your territory.

As well, with the implementation of destructible objectives, it kinda ties too with weapons and items. We though it would be a good idea to have shaped charges as a consumable that instantly destroys a target obbective no matter how tough it is, while attacking it with weapons might need a lot of shots in order to destroy a wall or a water depo, except if you use some of the most brutal variety like Melta guns or plasma guns.

All in all, territory control should be the main focus of the campaign and allowing you to choose which type of action your gang will carry out will work better than having random missions like in Mordheim.

The main issue I have with Mordheim is that there is no real tutorial in the “story mode” and there is no end to it as you can just keep farming your games until you have built a great gang.

What I would like to see implemented as game modes are the following:

1/ a short single player “story mode” that runs you through gang set up, starts with a basic gang war scenario, runs through a post game sequence, then gives you a set run through all of the available scenarios against 1 or 2 persistent AI gangs.

2/ a map based single/multiplayer mode with adjustable parameters that can be set up as a closed campaign to be played with friends. This for me would be the main game type to be played and would allow both single and multiplayer with option for selecting how many human and how many AI gangs were taking part in a turf war.

3/ a one off skirmish mode, where existing gangs from the other two game types or gangs made specifically for this game type can battle it out in one off scenarios. This is the game mode that needs match making and will end up being the “hard-core” PvP arena for those that only want to play against humans.

With the Story mode or regular campaign, i think that with 1 or 2 AI gangs will be too short to be honest. If i play the campaign i want to go for something long that can have many bumps in the road. I think it would be better with 11 AI gangs (with 4 zones, each with 4 gangs). That way the campaign will be more interesting because you might be able to see how the balance of power in other areas and in your area shift betwen the warring gangs.

I liked how the Campaigns worked for Mordheim, the whole go at your pace and play as long as you like thing was fine by me. But you definitely have a point with it not being noob friendly, as it's really not as straightforward as it seems. Stuff like it being important to hire an extra leader was just something you had to figure out. Adjustments should be made, but the basis of Mordhiem's campaign system was fine as far as I'm concerned. There's room for improvement for sure, and having adjustable campaign options would add a lot of replayability would be a great addition, although it does depend on what they actually are going to do and how it is going to work.

Your number one seems more like a fun way to implement a tutorial/intro than something that should be a cornerstone of the game.

I recently played Port Royale 3 again (yeah old-ish, but still good) and I really liked how the campaigns were put together there: Simple, tutorial-like goals that led you through all the major functions relevant to your chosen playstyle (trader or "adventurer") while leaving it up to you how to achieve the overall goals, then at the end, converted your game into a "Free Play" game so could continue on your own.

If the game had forcibly ended at the climax of the campaign, I would've been majorly miffed, so converting to free-play is a must, IMO (assuming those terms make sense within the context of Necromunda).

Hi there,

I also played Mordheim and loved it but as some of you already mentioned the missions will get quite boring very fast and no one is playing online.
Although i like warhammer fantasy much more than 40k, this game could be very great if they work on these weaknesses of mordheim.
For the multiplayer i suggest:

  1. I do not know if the perma death and perma wounds work for multiplayer because it is much harder to play against humans and in a perfect match making you will always barely win if you win at all. Could be quite depressing seeing your folks die and being wounded all the time (although i love this system for the campaign)
  2. I wished there would be any way of coop. For story mode or to play pvp 2vs2. I enjoy playing games with friends much more than alone!

A good point. Persistence is a double edged sword. It made the campaign more interesting, but the multiplayer more daunting. As you say in a perfect scenario players should be experiencing a win ratio of 1:1, which translates to everyone suffering regular losses. Which due to persistence means that you're often losing your favorites, or at least your leveled characters. Something that translates to a lot of people avoiding multiplayer.

Which creates a difficult question. How much do they want multiplayer to be utilized? I would think quite a bit, so they may want to consider lessening the blow, at least for Multiplayer matches.

Off the top of my head I think Docs. For an extra cost you can ignore your wound result or something like that. Also, up the reward for a Multiplayer game, make it possible to recover at least a couple fighters without losing your reward. In single player Docs can be adjusted, maybe have them more rare, have them as a contact you have to make, something to where they can be used but don't take out the risk factor. Another difference can be it's more expensive in Single than Multi.

Coop modes sounds fun too. There's the simple 2 v 2, 2 v 2AI, or what would be really great to me would be multiplayer campaigns with "diplomacy" type options IE: Gang Alliances fighting other Gang Alliances.

What I really, really hope is that they incorporate two things regarding game modes:

  1. A way to play multiplayer in a "private campaign" server mode: that is, campaigns where you and your friends can join and play games whenever you want, while the server keeps track of your wounds, experience, territories, equipment... kind of like if you were playing a campaign on tabletop with your friends. You can invite people, and people can play matches between them whenever they want, but you are not forced to play with strangers or anything. This would be really awesome because it would recreate the tabletop feeling of creating a story with your friends. I can't emphasize how cool it is when you've played 20 matches on a campaign and your gangers each have their personal stories, their grudges, wounds etc... And you also know your buddies' gangers by name!

  2. If they change the ruleset (incorporating HPs or stuff like that) I would pray for a way to play "classic" Necromunda, with rules from the tabletop game. That is, just an implementation of the tabletop game, with all its pros and cons. I don't care if you can "see" all hidden miniatures (which was an obvious drawback of playing with miniatures, obviously), the original system worked well.

A multitplayer campaign would definetly be quite damn good, because aside from having tons of potential and providing lots of extra hours of playability for the game, it can also help cement a good community around the game. And of course, the hilarious potential for good stories to surface from countless battles.

But about the wound system, the tabletop system would definetly be a huge gripe for many because of how it works. The current wound system is definetly not the best, but it works and it's easy to learn how it goes. I'll put an example: Let's take you have a Goliath ganger (base toughness 4) and you shoot it with a buckshot shotgun (shotgunes have different types of ammo). Your chances of inflincting a wound on a target with toughness 4 with a weapon with strength 2 are abysmal. And in a long campaign you can make your gangers tough as hell. Tough enough so they can shrug off las weapon shots like nothing and even bolter rounds.

If there is something i want they did in order to rebalance the wound system is applied to weapons (also because most weapons in Mordheim felt same-y): Ranged weapons have fixed damage but there are weapons that have more damage than others at the cost of certain penalties and such, while weapons with lower damage have certain benefits.

For example, starter pistols would do from 15-20 damage per shot but they have 1 free reload and +10% hit chance, Las pistols would deal 24-25 damage and never fail an ammo roll, and Bolters would deal 46-52 damage and have a considerable penalties to their ammo rolls. I think it's important to make less powerful weapons more practical with several bonuses (like they tried to do in Mordheim with daggers) in opposed to more powerful weapons that have other drawbacks.

This also ties with other things like how armor will be implemented, but that's another completely different subject.

@guileus said in Gameplay modes:

What I really, really hope is that they incorporate two things regarding game modes:

  1. A way to play multiplayer in a "private campaign" server mode: that is, campaigns where you and your friends can join and play games whenever you want, while the server keeps track of your wounds, experience, territories, equipment... kind of like if you were playing a campaign on tabletop with your friends. You can invite people, and people can play matches between them whenever they want, but you are not forced to play with strangers or anything. This would be really awesome because it would recreate the tabletop feeling of creating a story with your friends. I can't emphasize how cool it is when you've played 20 matches on a campaign and your gangers each have their personal stories, their grudges, wounds etc... And you also know your buddies' gangers by name!

  2. If they change the ruleset (incorporating HPs or stuff like that) I would pray for a way to play "classic" Necromunda, with rules from the tabletop game. That is, just an implementation of the tabletop game, with all its pros and cons. I don't care if you can "see" all hidden miniatures (which was an obvious drawback of playing with miniatures, obviously), the original system worked well.

We don't really know anything yet, but there's two things I can be fairly certain of. They're not going to do a direct conversion of TT. A D6 probability system just isn't going to work here, namely because even if the probability is perfectly implemented players will perceive it as unfair. They're almost definitely going to adapt their old system.

And they definitely won't do both. That would essentially mean designing the mechanics for two different games for one game. It simply would not be a cost effective plan.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.