I heard R:TW had Campain Multi...

[Don Megel]

In another thread in here I saw that the Aussies seam to think we'll have the much desired feature in Rome. However a number of our fellow TW fans scoff at this idea becouse it is too difficult to implament. I was just wondering if perhaps we could come up with a way that it could be implamented. If we could and it was fesable then perhaps its possible that it will be in the next release. If not its still possible we just dont know how :-P

I think that alot of the time issues could/would be solved by allowing all players to manage thier lands/make thier moves at the same time then hit "Go". When all players have hit Go then the moves would play out and a list of battles would be drawn up. Players would fight one another or the PC while other players did like wise. If a player had no battle to fight while every one else was wageing war they could nagotiate treaties or perhaps start on thier next turn.

What do you think?

Please dont flame me, I mean only to start a disscussion on Campain MP in R:TW, if this has been done please direct me to that thread.

THanks,

[Asmodeus]

I think it 'could' be done but I doubt it will be part of the first release. More likely another add-on pack if they do it at all.

I suspect the long duration of the game (far longer than a typical CIV3 game for example) would make it very difficult to complete a campaign online with more than a couple of people playing. Add to that disconnetion / lag issues. If every player has a battle in one turn would it be wise to keep a fire extinguisher near the server? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

They may introduce a shorter version of a campaign to make this more playable, who knows?

I like the idea of it but I just dont think they will do it. I think at this stage it is more likely a mistake in the magazine that hinted at it. However, I would love a developer to put me right on this matter (hint hint) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

One idea i had for the battles which could be quite fun....

If during the end of turn 'resolve battles' phase you were not personally at war with anyone perhaps you could spectate other players/AI battles in provinces that you have a spy in (or a watchtower next to). That would certainly ease the boredom of waiting, and allow your spy to really 'spy' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Otherwise i guess you just have to look for interesting V&V's amongst your generals, move ships around or drink beer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Odyssey of War]

Good idea with one flaw. But I think the flaw could be resolved somehow. The flaw is that we would all be able to see what each person was doing as they were moving their pieces on the map, and we could act accordingly and I think this is why they havent implemented multi-player yet. This would need to be corrected, but otherwise its a sound idea. Im not a programmer, so no idea if it can be done. But I do like the idea.

[Don Megel]

Well the length issue could be solved in a few ways. THe players could save the the game and come back later or if a player dropped the AI or an ally could take over for a while.

[Odyssey of War]

Lag and long game issues would be a concern online, but it would work for network games and for direct-connect games. Whats more fun than whooping the ass of a friend while he is sitting near you and you can hear his whimpers.

[Alrowan]

well its posible to make all players do thier moves simultaneously, but only when hey end thier turn and all others have, then thier moves will show to the other players.. the same way MTW works now

[Efrem Da King]

If ya have mini campains and a each turn = 5 mins or some other time set by the host it could be fun.

[Knight_Yellow]

*rushes in with anti flame fire extingusher*

*looks around*

*sniffs the air*

*shrugs*

*walks out all sad*


hmm a mp campaign thread not burning like a shed full of gasoline, good job keep it up.

[solypsist]

just as an experiment, I'm moving this thread to the multiplayer forum to see what input the MP players can give to this subject.

moved to the Jousting Fields.

[Don Megel]

You moved my thread? I cant belive it, my thread, MINE, moved just like so many bags of old garbage Ah

*MOD slaps Megel*

Sorry, never had a thread moved before...its kinda cool :-P So if I post here will it show up in the other one too? I wouldnt think so. IN any case, hello Multiplayer TW fans Please keep your coments constructive and, er, cool.

[Kongamato]

I am pretty sure that one of the first objectives of RTW is to enable an MP campaign. The 3D real-time stratmap makes it more possible than ever. Plus, with 3D graphics like what is shown, a mainstream audience could finally be acquired. Unless, of course, there is some unrecognized benefit in making highly rated cult games.

[tootee]

MP is a small market for TW, I think. MP campaign mode wouldn't increase that significantly. Based on this, I dont think CA will be interested in it, and tactical MP isnt even 90% perfect for now, doing a campaign mode MP should introduced more problems for CA to solve *and patch*.

[Magyar Khan]

it can be done, will marketing allow it?

its been hyped and advertised before.

first seen than believe

[Puzz3D]

Well, an obstacle to be overcome is that the game runs independently on every machine in the game. It's not client/server based. That means all the events that use the random number generator must track exactly on everyone's machine or else you will go out of sync with the other players. It's a fairly difficult technical obstacle to be overcome, although, I'm sure it can be done. One way to do it is to change to a client/server model, and have only the host actually run the game. The host would take in each player's moves, run the turn with auto resolve and then send out the new game state to each player in the game.

I presume that the players asking for multiplayer campaign are interseted mostly in the strategic game and less interested in playing out tactical battles online since you can already do that now. I can't imagine playing out the batles as part of this multiplayer campaign. A battle can easily take an hour to play, and there is no reinforcement feature anyway. You are limited to 16 units.

[Don Megel]

No, we want the full thing, a great deal of TWs charm is the tactical and stratigic battles in one. It can be done...this thread is to figure out how.

[Dionysus9]

We debated the "hows" and "whys" extensively...some time ago, apparently, it had some effect because we proposed a real-time 3d strat map (and thats what we're getting&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

Unfortunately the biggest obstacle to overcome in a full tactical and strategic campaign IS the length and number of tactical battles.

In a single player campaign, you fight every battle--one at a time. Some rounds you might have 10 battles to fight. Others you might not have any. If you are playing online with, say, 6 other people-- what do you do when they have 20 battles to fight and you have only 1? Sit and twiddle thumbs? thats no fun.

I will try and find that thread...might take some doing tho...

Edit: Nope...cant find it. Must not have made it into the Archives.... Oh well...

Our conclusion was basically this: You have to limit the number of battles per turn that each player can personally command OR you have to make all battles occur in real time--with two or more battles going simultaneously.

The first option is the most realistic, our idea was to have ONE king which you control in battle, and otherwise all your other commanders are on AutoResolve.

The second idea is the most fun, but can you imagine the lag? The strain on our computers hurts my head just thinking about having 10 real-time tactical battles occuring at once. It would be a blast if the computers could handle it-- ALT-TAB from battle to battle and issue commands. Heh, what a mess that would be. You'd have to keep the # of battles low just so you could handle it.

[LittleGrizzly]

wasnt there a rumor mi would have this and almost till a little bit before release mtw was gonna have this and did it ?

the answer to previous question is answer to whether i think its coming

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]I presume that the players asking for multiplayer campaign are interseted mostly in the strategic game and less interested in playing out tactical battles online since you can already do that now. I can't imagine playing out the batles as part of this multiplayer campaign. A battle can easily take an hour to play, and there is no reinforcement feature anyway. You are limited to 16 units.


I'll speak on that as I'm one asking, desparately, for it.

For the most part, we're looking for GREATer challenge both Strategically and Tactically, and just as importantly, MORE realism. As I'm sure you all will agree a Human player would be the ultimate Strategic adversary.

Tactical MP in its present form allows for NO strategic elements to effect battle, and battles have NO strategic consequences. That's pretty much it in a nutshell

I can imagine playing the battles, and believe that, most, battles will be relatively SHORT given the effects of the Stategic elements; and probably relatively FEW (especially between good and poor players).

Think about it, you won't be able to bring your "custom" army (which you know intimately) as you do now in Tactical MP, but instead be compelled to fight the troops you have available; and often this won't even be your Best troops available, as a Human will seek to strike at your weakest troops. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Think even more about it, take a look at the Strat Map. Provinces, such as Sweden, Flanders, Venice, Scilily and Constantinople, will be HEAVILY defended with LARGE garrisons of the Best troops, along with ADVANCED castles.

These places will most likely be the LAST places one would attack and involve the Longest and Greatest battles.

[CA will need to greatly improve Ships, both for Trade and War. Equally, "Trade" will need to be more developed. Sea Warfare SHOULD require a different and NEW skill set to master. Allowing for the development of Great Sea Players whose aclimation to Sea Warfare will make them Dominat players in this aspect.]

In such a situation, the Rock, Paper, Scissor, tactics that Tactical MP players have perfected will be greatly reduced in relevance; and all the other battle "aspects" that CA put great effort coding into the game will be enormously magnafied.

Just for example (I'm sure you all can thing of others), your General's Valour and V&V will be HUGELY important; and TACTICS (and maneuverability) will become paramount Along with use of Terrain (and Sea). All these will be magnafied several fold in comparison to Tactical MP.

The reason being that C-MP battles will RARELY be evenly balanced between opponnents, yet the need to Win (and the consequences of losing) will be GREAT

Once C-MP is implemented, The GREAT Player Generals will be those who will master all the above Strategic AND Tactical elements AND do so in "battle" situations in which they are, Outmanned, Outgunned and Out-qualitied (armour and troops). Such are the Great remembered.

Also, The GREAT Strategic Players will master the "strategic" techniques that will allow them to come to battle with "distinct" advantage(s). (Of course, such players may turn out to be poor battlefield generals, so they may need EVERY advantage.)

The GREAT Battlefield Players will find it necessary to overcome ON THE BATTLEFIELD the "advantages" that better "strategic" players might bring to battle.

Now THIS is truly TOTAL WAR and want WE desire. As yet Tactical MP just doesn't cut it.

With C-MP, I forsee, three types of players developing as indicated above, Great Strategic Playes, Great Battlefield Players, and the Truly Great Players who will be Great at both. [Possibly a fourth, Great Admiral Players.]

Frankly, C-MP should involve mastering several distinct skillsets.

This is the Dream

Realize that The Creative Assembly, of course, being those most intimately aware of Total War's potential must be the one's who desire C-MP most of all; and their utlimate goals will never be realized until they bring this about.

It will be REVOLUTIONARY Don't you all agree?

Isnt't this what Micheal De Platter stated in the PC Gamer article? "...Revolutionize the Genre...."

[Puzz3D]

ToranagaSama,

I disagree. Tactics will become pointless in battles with a large disparity in strength between the forces. The tactical play is enhanced when the opposing armies are balanced. The problem with MP that everyone is griping about now is due to imbalance in the opposing forces.


Don,

CA have already stated that the reason there is no multiplayer campaign is the amount of effort that would have to be dedicated to getting it done, and it's not a high priority for them. I gave a suggestion for MPC that might be doable by them without too much work, but what you want is a lot more work.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Jan. 23 2003,22:28)]ToranagaSama,

I disagree. Tactics will become pointless in battles with a large disparity in strength between the forces. The tactical play is enhanced when the opposing armies are balanced.
You'll have to explain why?

History would beg to differ, the greatest Victories in history have been won by innovative and superior tactics utilized by the dis-advantaged adversary.

Henry V, Nelson, Alexandar, Napolian, etc.

I presume, you think that because I'm, Outmanned, Outgunned and Out-qualitied that I'm going to lose?

Fortunately, CA has coded a number of factors to mitigate such circumstances in an attempt to mimick real life.

It takes adversity to bring out the best.



Quote[/b] ]The problem with MP that everyone is griping about now is due to imbalance in the opposing forces.


I believe you make my point.

Whatever "imbalances" you people are griping about, are MAGNIFIED by the "artificiality" of Tactical MP (in relation to real life and to all that is Total War).

The significance of SMALL "imbalances" ONLY become so enlarged when they are "virtually" the ONLY factors to be considered.

Think about it, with Tactical MP, you guys seek the "flatest" maps to negate TW's Terrain mitigator, you through off Missile Units as ineffective, you only use Pavaise Arbs, and several other things that have come about as a result of the "aritifical" setting that is Tactical MP.

Create a more "real" setting (both in terms of real life and all that TW offers) and all the things that have been discarded in Tactical MP come into play and HENCE the opportunity for GREATER tactical options and play.

The greater the options, the greater the tactics, the greater innovation.

The fewer options, the fewer the tactics, the lower the innovation. Simple

This is why you guys are so focused on the minutest difference in "balance". What else is there?

In a C-MP battle, there will be soooo many more Tactical and Strategic factors that will effect battle that the "small" imbalances you guys fight about will become largely irrelevant as there will so many OTHER factors to be concerned about effecting battle outcomes.

Just the way I see it dude, I doubt you can convince me otherwise.

[Magyar Khan]

sigh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Dionysus9]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Jan. 23 2003,21:28)]Dion,
...
I gave a suggestion for MPC that might be doable by them without too much work, but what you want is a lot more work.
...
Heh, its all a pipe-dream to me Yuuki-- I dont believe they will have an MP campaign anyway, so why not dream big? By the time they finally deliver my idea might be possible (2025?)

[AMPage]

I'd rather play sp campaign, then an online one that dosn't have the battles.

They could start off trying it out with small campaigns and not going all out with 50+ provinces.

To stop battles from being so long, you could have timers. You could set a max on how many battles 1 person can battle each turn. Have the AI control the rest of the battles or if it's a clan battle have your members fight each battle.

Sure battles will be unbalanced, that's part of the campaign. I've won battles where i had the weaker/smaller army and lost battles where i had the stronger/langer army.

Going out of sync shouldn't be a problem if you can just rejoin. Other games have that option...

It wouldn't take that long to make an M-CP. Look at all the other games that have them. It's more like do they want to make multiplayer big? It's unlimited to how much they could do with multiplayer, but there efforts aren't in mp.

[Puzz3D]

ToranagaSama,

Nice concept that better tactics can overcome big odds, but in the online battles it doesn't take much of an advantage in combat power to seal the victory. In these battles, if you have an advantage in power, you can just walk forward in wide lines and win. Likewise, if you have and arbalester and I have a crossbow, I can't win no matter what I do. If you have a large force, but a cowardly general then sure the smaller force will win because the -9 morale from "coward V&V" is a huge penalty. Likewise, valor increases constitute huge advantages on teh battlefied. The only battles that would be worth playing out are the ones where the sides were fairly closely balanced. You might think battles with unbalanced sides will be fun, but I don't.

[Don Megel]

I know unbalenced battles are fun. Some of my most memrable battles in SP are the ones where my forces where cut off and out numbered 10 to 1. I loved those massive struggles where I adventuly won out. Granted, it was the AI I was playing agasint, but the same thing is possible with a human opponaint. Real Generals have been fighitng agasint the odds struggles since war fare began. THe truth of the matter is, in real war, the sides are almost never ballenced.

As for CA, they said they really wanted to make C:MP but the engian couldnt handle it. NOw they have a new engian, one that sounds alot like it might be able to do what needs to be done...

[ElmarkOFear]

I am not sure if everybody knows this, but in the old MI/WE game it was found that some of the code for a MP campaign was left in the game files. They tried apparently, but could not resolve some of the issues they faced. I am afraid the time constraints will make it impossible for them to get it in the new Rome game as well. Also, Activision places more emphasis on console gaming, and until console gaming goes multiplayer, I do not see Activision willing to put the resources into a multi campaign for a Total War PC game. As a last note: As past experience shows, players who say they want a tourney, campaign, league etc. . .and those who actually participate when a league or tourney is offered are few. Anything that lasts more than a day seems to die about 1/3 to 1/2 way through. Ask, the Shade Clan, Magyarkhan, the Elite Clan . . and so on. They all have participated and or hosted campaigns, tourneys, leagues.

[Magyar Khan]

true elmo, and if rules are set by any of the hosts it will fail anyway http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

therefor i would say make a very simplistic campaign within twr where just 2 sides are involved, rome vs barbarians. minimize effort and see how the demand evolves

[Kraellin]

Quote[/b] ]We debated the "hows" and "whys" extensively...some time ago, apparently, it had some effect because we proposed a real-time 3d strat map (and thats what we're getting

what's this 'We' sh*t? it was MY idea, to which you said something like, 'oh, that's brilliant'.


Quote[/b] ]Our conclusion was basically this: You have to limit the number of battles per turn that each player can personally command OR you have to make all battles occur in real time--with two or more battles going simultaneously.

The first option is the most realistic, our idea was to have ONE king which you control in battle, and otherwise all your other commanders are on AutoResolve.

and again, MY idea. let's give credit where credit is due. i'm not too pissed off here, since i'm fairly terrible about giving sources also, but to just say 'OUR, WE, MY' and not even 'someone said' or 'i remember a discussion where someone suggested' ...that's just plain rude, dude.

and then, even worse, you go on to say
Quote[/b] ] By the time they finally deliver my idea might be possible (2025?) so, 'we' and 'our' becomes completely yours. now that's just plain hijacking. not cool.

i expect all royalties gained, turned over to me forthwith, along with punitive damages.

K.

[Don Megel]

Whoa, no need ta get all huffy. I imagin he didnt mean anything by it.

The diffrence in C:MP as a feature and C:MP as a plyer run event is when its run by the players its up to them to keep track of every thing and run the show. Its alot harder then hitting "End Turn" and lettign the PC do it. I think C:MP would have plenty of followers.

[LadyAnn]

Hey Kraellin, want to hire a lawyer? WE could make a lot of money together. Howbaout 1/3 for me, 2/3 for you? Who you want to sue?

Annie
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Puzz3D]

Don Megel,

Go online and give 2:1 odds. You won't win a single battle.

[Dionysus9]

Krae--

Hey m8, I apologize if I was being vague or unclear and it caused you any frustration. I don't think I mis-represented anything, although I could have been more clear. The problem I think is because I forgot who it was that came up with the idea (I knew it wasnt me, and I thought it was you...but I didnt want to say who it was without knowing--I tried to find the thread so I could say for sure but it wasnt anywhere). We are talking about a conversation we had more than 9 months ago...my memory is a bit hazy.

The 3D realtime strategy map was all your idea. I'd never try to take credit for that.

However-- WE did debate the "hows" and "whys" of it.

Yes, it was your idea to have one king-- but you convinced all of us who were debating that it was the only viable option-- therefore WE reached the conclusion (under your guidance).

Finally-- by "My idea" I was referring to "having 10 real-time tactical battles occuring at once. It would be a blast if the computers could handle it-- ALT-TAB from battle to battle and issue commands. Heh, what a mess that would be."

That was my idea--of course grown out of your initial idea. I don't think you ever considered that as a possibility--ALT-TABBING between numerous real-time battles. I'm certain you never considered it in that original thread.

Anyway, Krae, FOR THE RECORD-- It was your idea. We debated. We concluded. I had a complementary idea based on yours.

I think thats enough said about it. Sorry if I've offended you. I did my best to find the original thread so I could give you credit and a link...oh well...I couldnt remember if it was you or someone else who suggested it.

I guess I should just keep my mouth shut more often.

In the future, though, please give me the benefit of the doubt. If I was a jerk and a hijacker of ideas I'd have a reputation for it by now...dont you think?


P.S.

And as for lawsuits, go ahead and try me-- the best claim you have is negligent misrepresentation, but my statements were ambiguous at best. No intent to defraud or misrepresent on my part, so punitives are unlikely (depending on the state you are in probably impossible to recover punitives for negligent misrep).

You may, however, have an action against CA for royalties...I'd suggest letting it go though....expensive to fight and probably not worth it in the end. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Cant we just be friends Krae--I meant no harm.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[LadyAnn]

You don't need to alt-tab to move from battle to battle: just buy a bunch of computers, subscribes to enough ethernet connection (or have a fast one) and be a clan yourself.

I know it could be done.

Annie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

ps: see you in court http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kraellin]

dionysus,

the lawsuit thing was just a joke to lighten up, and show that i wasnt all that pissed off...guess i forgot the smilie there.

i never mind someone making one of my ideas, their ideas, i just like to be referenced as the originator and there was not even one mention of anything originating from anyone else but yourself, except the 'our' reference, which made it seem like all those ideas came originally from yourself. just a suggestion, when you simply cant find the source, or reference the source, at least say something that alludes to there being another source. hell, like i said, i'm terrible at referencing these things myself, but i always make sure i at least say 'this was someone else's work or idea' and i'm just adding to it, altering it, or whatever.

and yeah, i didnt think you were a bonehead or something. we had some good discussions on that stuff and a LOT of folks did contribute to that discussion and add other things, other ideas. it was a good discussion and i enjoyed your participation in it, which is also why this recent thread here kind of made me go, what in the world? :)


Quote[/b] ]I guess I should just keep my mouth shut more often.

nah, this current discussion just proves that you need to say more, not less ;) tis cool :)

K.

[Dionysus9]

Ok, well as long as there arent any hard feelings...

Back on topic-- have you seen any info on how they are implementing your idea?

I mean, saying you have a "real time 3d strategy map" is one thing but implementing it is another. You had some really good ideas for implementation but I haven't heard any word out of CA as to how its going to work--have you heard anything?

P.S. I knew you were kidding about the lawsuit--so was I. Did you know I'm an attorney? heh...I am.

[LadyAnn]

oops, then see you in court is actually true http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Annie

[Kraellin]

nope. havent seen a thing about it. wasnt even sure they'd said it was real time. been kind of busy and havent been following all the news on it. i hope they let me beta test it before they release it, though :)

K.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Jan. 27 2003,12:17)]I am not sure if everybody knows this, but in the old MI/WE game it was found that some of the code for a MP campaign was left in the game files. They tried apparently, but could not resolve some of the issues they faced.

Anyone know more about this?

Did someone examine the code? If so, what was CA up to? How were they trying to implement C-MP?

BTW, Dionysus9, don't let these amateur lawyers sweat ya, Kraellin doesn't have a prayer. NO DAMAGES, NO CASE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[GilJaysmith]

You'll see labels for "Multiplayer Campaign" messages all through the text files. It's easier to leave these in, since some messages get reused in different contexts if they have convenient wording.

I don't know whether you'd find anything intelligible from disassembling the code. We can't even understand some of the source ;-)

From what I've heard of it, the design for C-MP in Shogun was like the timed-turn mode in Civ3PTW: the server set a time limit for each season's moves, and forwarded each player's moves to all machines. This had all the potential synchronisation problems faced by the multiplayer battlemap code, with the added trauma that the campaign map hadn't been designed for nonlocal players.

[Swoosh So]

Nice to see your still around gil http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif What games you working on now? Or is that top secret http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif

[GilJaysmith]

Quote[/b] (Swoosh So @ Feb. 01 2003,12:07)]Nice to see your still around gil :) What games you working on now? Or is that top secret :flirt:
I'm just one of several people working on top-secret memetic technology which will kill you if you haven't been inoculated by a suitable pre-launch PR campaign...

In the last couple of weeks I've also been doing some MP work for Vikings. "Every time I keep pulling out, they keep pulling me in..."

[FearofNC]

once played a game called castles... was a fun game and had somewhat of a real time strat map. had little timers that looked like loading bars..when u give a command it takes a set amount of time to compleate the task...the time to compeation was displayed by the loading bar... the problem imho about real time strat maps is that greater emphesis is placed on knowing the right order to build....because there is less time to pause and think about your moves...once you learn the "correct" build order the game becomes less stragic and less fun.