AI & multiplayer campaign

[Martok]

Discussing these topics (or just about any other topic) at the offical site can be very draining! Alx and msyelf, along with a few others, have been trying to convince people in this thread (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessage?topicID=50.topic) and in this thread (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessage?topicID=125.topic) of the importance of good AI, and why implementing a multiplayer campaign isn't feasible--especially at this point (most major features are almost certainly starting to be locked down already). I don't know if I'm just not being "plain-spoken" enough to be understood, or what. Granted, it was maybe stupid of me to have tried to engage people in a reasoned conversation over there in the first place. ~:rolleyes: But I swear trying to get my point across to them is something akin to this: :wall: :wall: :wall:

So now I'm curious: Would I be speaking for a majority here at the Org that ideally we'd like both good AI and a multiplayer campaign, but that doing both probably isn't practical? Or am I completely off my rocker here? I thought I had some reasonable points, but I'm starting to doubt my own sanity now....


[wanders off, muttering to self]

[Monarch]

Actually I agree. This isn't AoE where a standard map multiplayer takes like an hour and everything happens on the same map. I mean while somebody is taking their turn, we'll use BI as a for instance, person #1 is a horde so his turn is taking like 30 seconds (assuming he's not going on a sack fest), however then you could get somebody playing as the WRE who is taking ages just to sort out settlements, then he's got troops movements and battles, what person 1 is supposed to twiddle his thumbs in the meantime.

Also everyone must be on at the samer time in case the person whose turn it is wants a battle, it's not a case of making a cup of tea while somebody has their turn.

IMO Rome doesn't lend itself to being MP. Not at least the full sp version. The only way would be to knock out battles, make everything autoresolve. But then you still have the bordom when it's not your turn.

I am however quite excited about this new system they are apparently implementing for mp. Hopefully we'll find out something about in PC Zone on Feb 2nd.

PS. This isn't me against a MP campaign, I'm just saying it'd be VERY difficult to implement.

[Hambut_bulge]

I've never touched multiplayer battles in either MTW or RTW, and I'm never likely too. Even less likely to want to play a full multiplayer campaign. Where to find the time for starters?! Plus there's the fact that I (like many people here as became evident in the furore over the load/save *cough* 'feature') play for a few turns at a time. Twenty people, each taking about half an hour to finish a turn? A full campaign would go on forever! So I agree that full multiplayer would be unpractical in any Total War game.

So spend the time on tuning the AI please CA

[Ludens]

I am an SP player, so naturally A.I. is very important for me. I also think that an MP campaign would be impractical due to the amount of time each turn would take. Also, since it would be hard to fill up all factions in a MP game (everyone wants to play the English, no one the Aztecs), the an A.I. is necessary to make up for that.

If it was possible to make the strategic part simultenously turn-based (e.g. the players order their moves, press end turn and then these moves take place, like it was in S:TW and M:TW) then it might be workable. Such a game might entice me to go MP as well.

[Zawath]

Smaller 2-4 faction campaigns would work very well.

[Mithrandir]

Smaller 2-4 faction campaigns would work very well.

Yes..or even more dramatic... real time empire managing strategy!

Why does it have to be turnbased ? All players have a "buill&train-turn" and a "battle-turn", build turn taking ,f.e. 5 minutes, and battle turns taking f.e. 15 minutes (depending on the nr. of armies used).


Just brainstorming here :).

[_Aetius_]

I think we'd all like a MP campaign, but I think impossible or atleast not worth attempting whilst SP is still such a mess. Sort the basic game out first, AI, gameplay etc then perhaps if a good plan was decided upon attempt somekind of MP campaign.

I just don't think its possible as of yet. I'd be much happier to see SP sorted out and made playable for once than they attempt anything more ambitious.

[Mithrandir]

I think we'd all like a MP campaign, but I think impossible or atleast not worth attempting whilst SP is still such a mess.

The game isn't even released yet, how can it already be a mess? :inquisitive:

-Mithrandir (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60102)

[hellenes]

Yes..or even more dramatic... real time empire managing strategy!

Why does it have to be turnbased ? All players have a "buill&train-turn" and a "battle-turn", build turn taking ,f.e. 5 minutes, and battle turns taking f.e. 15 minutes (depending on the nr. of armies used).


Just brainstorming here :).

Mithrandir
Its pointless to argue with the perfect "AI" pipedreamers...
It sad for me to see people with online access writing off Multiplayer,:no: :no:
and knowing deep inside that there wont be ANY challenge in ANY TW game without it.

Hellenes

[TinCow]

I have never played TW MP, but I would definitely play MP campaigns all the time. That said, I would far, far prefer a good AI to a MP campaign. I just wish they would open source the AI... THAT would solve a lot of the problems.

[ajaxfetish]

Much as I would love to see a multiplayer campaign, it seems far too impractical to me, at least at the moment, and I would prefer to see improved AI first as well.

Ajax

[_Aetius_]

The game isn't even released yet, how can it already be a mess? :inquisitive:

-Mithrandir (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60102)

Hmmm I seem to have typed an answer for a slightly different question referring to RTW instead of MTW2. :oops:

:laugh4:

[Lord Armbandit]

MP campaign would be great, but as for the majority of posters here, I don't see it as very practical.

Possible workarounds;

The 'order' turn sounds about right above, these could be made offline, and submitted into the game (though how this works in terms of whose computer the game actually runs on is not for my non-technical brain to work out).

As for the real-time battles, perhaps each faction could only fight one per turn on the battle map, (choosing which one), and have the AI fight with the rest of your armies. This way each human player fights one battle per turn, against either human or AI adversaries, thus not slowing things down too much. the human-AI battles could also be fought essentially offline.

[Kraxis]

Shadewolf and I actually had a nice MP Campaign going for MTW. THe most impractical about it was the lack of gamecompatibility.

We (he actually) made our own strategic map and then decided which tactical map would fit the battle. Went in and fought (had buddies handling surplus troops) and then we went over 'captured' troops to ransom them back. Now, this was a twoplayer game with possibility for a third.

We played the strategic part outside the game, which could be translated into 'not online' (despite the fact that it was).
Of course this would need a few smaller maps to facilitate various gameplays. HYW, Barbarossa's campaigns in Italy, Mongol Invasion ect... Then people move their troops and do their stuff, connect to each other (server hosting a game perhaps?), checks if there is combat between them. No? Next turn... Combat? YES! Ok players find a time to meet. And then that would be the trouble.

An MP campaign would be very different from the original game. More simplistic and far far longer, perhaps only a turn every few days. At lest that was what we learned and we were dedicated to the project. But if the tools had been there to remember what survived battles (and the ability to merge and load the army up again with depleted units), which soldiers that got captured or killed, then it would be a huge step towards an MP campaign.

Our little test was hugely fun while it lasted.

[sapi]

I've never touched multiplayer battles in either MTW or RTW, and I'm never likely too. Even less likely to want to play a full multiplayer campaign. Where to find the time for starters?! Plus there's the fact that I (like many people here as became evident in the furore over the load/save *cough* 'feature') play for a few turns at a time. Twenty people, each taking about half an hour to finish a turn? A full campaign would go on forever! So I agree that full multiplayer would be unpractical in any Total War game.

So spend the time on tuning the AI please CA
You would all do your turns at once; but i agree, a multiplayer campaign is just impratical, and i'd much rather see a decent sp ai

[cromwell]

I'm all for multi campaign, however the first thing CA have to do is balance the troops. The game will be unplayable if certain troops are over powered. Those of you who havn't played online probably havn't experienced the frustration of troop spamming and overall lack of fun when people exploit the game just to win. The rock,paper,scissor, formula must be as close to perfect as possible, before any multiplayer game will work.


Cromwell

[Ciaran]

Yes..or even more dramatic... real time empire managing strategy!


I do agree, though "real-time" would hardly be possible - we´re talking about a four hundred-thensome period ~;)
"Continuous time" would be a more appropriate term. And I think it could work, playing Knights of Honor I´ve seen it work, and work pretty well at that. It might conflict, however, with battle depth, especially if battles don´t pause the strategic game - which they should not in an MP campaign, because if they did the old dilemma, all waiting for a battle resolving, would be back and none the wiser.