PBEM: Still the only sensible option.

[Didz]

Just making an obvious statement that of CA or any other developers finally decide to provide a decent MP solution for the wargaming market then it really has to be PBEM.

One can get away with real time battles provided they are relatively small scale, short and with a limited player population. But even here Sid Meiers Gettysberg soon deminstrated the limitations of real time when refighting a major battle with six or more players involved.

Its time developers faced the facts and stopped trying to deliver a solution that just won't work. A PBEM option has to be built into every serious strategy game.

[allanphillips]

Hmmmm. I thought MTW/VI worked pretty well for MP, and that wasn't Play By E-Mail. Plus at 4v4 with 1500 troops or more each (12,000+ total), it wasn't particularly small scale either. Also I'm not sure what your definition of "short" is, but battles of an hour or more weren't that rare.

Cheers,

Allan

[Didz]

Hmmmm. I thought MTW/VI worked pretty well for MP, and that wasn't Play By E-Mail. Plus at 4v4 with 1500 troops or more each (12,000+ total), it wasn't particularly small scale either. Also I'm not sure what your definition of "short" is, but battles of an hour or more weren't that rare.

Hi Alan,

I should have explained that as far as I am concerned a game isn't MP unless you can play the entire game multiplayer.

So, far none of the TW games have been MP as it has been impossible to play the campaign against a set of human opponents. All CA have done is tack on an MP battle feature as an additional option.

As for what I consider to be a long battle. If we look at Gettysburg or Waterloo for example I would expect a proper simulation of those battles even in real-time at 4 xi real speed (which would be pretty unplayable) would take in excess of 3 hours playing time and to be playable I would expect a game to take at least 6 hours.

Not really practical on-line particularly with different time zones. I once had to stay up till nearly 4am just to complete an online game with an opponent in the USA.

[allanphillips]

Ah! I see what you mean!

Cheers,

Allan

[Puzz3D]

PBEM multiplayer campaign really should be in this game. Despite all the talk about simultaneous moves, the game is and always has been baton passing from one faction to the next. The factions make their moves one after the other, so passing a savegame around with all the battles auto-resolved would be possible.

[baz]

after thinking about a MP campaign, i am not really that worried. The 3d battles are the only aspect that interests me and a battle between two experienced players would be decided by army strength before the battle even commenced. Dont get me wrong i think it would be great for the community to all play a campaign and it would be a lot of fun but it is not a priority.

If you want to auto resolve and PBEM would a game like battleground waterloo not be more of a challenge?

[Didz]

after thinking about a MP campaign, i am not really that worried. The 3d battles are the only aspect that interests me and a battle between two experienced players would be decided by army strength before the battle even commenced. Dont get me wrong i think it would be great for the community to all play a campaign and it would be a lot of fun but it is not a priority.

I respect the fact that some members would not be interested in the challenge of playing the campaign against human opposition. But as someone who has played PBEM games it really is the only serious challenge available as at the end of the day no AI opponent can match a human.


If you want to auto resolve and PBEM would a game like battleground waterloo not be more of a challenge?

Not sure if you've actually played any of the Battleground games PBEM but if you have you will know that they are a) not campaigns, merely battles b) critically flawed in their modelling of historical periods they represent and c) open to gamesmanship by unscrupulous players (particularly Frenchmen ~;) ).

The key point as far as I am concerned is that the TotalWar series represents the cutting edge in wargame design and ought to be sweeping the wargame market. The only thing stopping it is the lack of a feasible MP option which is preventing the formation of wargaming communities based upon the game and also seriously reducing its replay value.

Most other game designers rerecognize that whilst the SP campaign can sell a game its continued sales growth comes from its MP playability Diablo2 and the Battleground series are classic examples. And yet despite three sucessive releases we are still waiting for CA to provide us with a PBEM option so that we can play MP campaigns.

Its like designing a great sports car and putting a lawnmower engine under the bonnet. These games ought to be dominating the wargaming market, instead crap like Battleground Waterloo is still selling simply because its the only thing that provides a human challenge.