Players in the Multiplayer Campaign, your attention please.

[Myrddraal]

More and more people are wanting to join this campaign. We now have two Roman players, when at the start of this campaign we agreed that the Romans would be AI.


Therefore I would like to make the following annoucement. After this new brutii player, this multiplayer campaign will be CLOSED, by which I mean no new human players.

The reasoning behind this is simple, before I released this script a few beta tests were carried out. We had every faction controlled by a player. Every one of the beta tests collapsed. The more players you have, the longer you must wait between turns, the slower the game runs etc.

We currently have the following players:

Britannia
Germania
Gaul
Macedon
Spain
Carthage
Greek Cities
Egypt
The House of Julii
The House of Brutii
Pontus
Seleucia
Parthia

This is more than enough, in fact I fear it may be too much. I hope you understand this move.

[UltraWar]

More an more people are wanting to join this campaign. We now have two Roman players, when at the start of this campaign we agreed that the Romans would be AI.


Therefore I would like to make the following annoucement. After this new brutii player, this multiplayer campaign will be CLOSED, by which I mean no new human players.

The reasoning behind this is simple, before I released this script a few beta tests were carried out. We had every faction controlled by a player. Every one of the beta tests collapsed. The more players you have, the longer you must wait between turns, the slower the game runs etc.

We currently have the following players:

Britannia
Germania
Gaul
Macedon
Spain
Carthage
Greek Cities
Egypt
The House of Julii
The House of Scipii
Pontus
Seleucia
Parthia

This is more than enough, in fact I fear it may be too much. I hope you understand this move.

it is House of Brutii... not the Scipii...

Myradraal.... would you like to start the campaign off by taking RickFGS's go to start off the campaign?

[Monarch]

We still havn't decided on difficulty level etc

I'd like normal battles and hard or very hard campaign.

[UltraWar]

H/H or VH/VH

[Myrddraal]

We will be playing normal battles - this should always be the case in all multiplayer campaigns. Auto resolve uses the battle difficulty, unless normal is used an unfair advantage will always be given to the defender.


I suggest normal battles, VH campaign.

[Monarch]

H/H or VH/VH

I'd agree if we where playing the battles, but with auto resolve the battle thing will just get screwy. Normal just means nobody gets any morale/attack/defense bonuses, its the fairest setting.

Edit: thanks Myrdraal, I agree.

[RickFGS]

I would like Very hard battles and very hard campaign, other settings are pure joke, on less then very hard, battles just suck.

[RickFGS]

I would like Very hard battles and very hard campaign, other settings are pure joke, on less then very hard, battles just suck.

[Myrddraal]

Rick, since most battles will be auto - resolved, playing on Very hard battles will give a HUGE dissadvantage to the attacker. It cannot work that way.

[RickFGS]

Playing on normal will give advantages to your troops, since they are all inferior, you will have a sweet way to expand in the begginning, also, your chariots are bugged in auto battles, as they tend to overperform, while in a manual battle they wouldnt do that much.

[RickFGS]

I´d say Hard Battles and very hard campaign y? All agree i believe.

[Myrddraal]

Playing on normal will give advantages to your troops, since they are all inferior, you will have a sweet way to expand in the begginning, also, your chariots are bugged in auto battles, as they tend to overperform, while in a manual battle they wouldnt do that much.

Listen, I'm not doing this for my own benefit. I designed this script, I know how it works, if I wanted to exploit technicalities, I could win easily, but I want to enjoy myself.

This is what happens to auto-resolved battles when you change the battle difficulties:

Low battle difficulty - gives you, the attacker, an unfair advantage
Normal battle difficulty - no advantage given to either side
High battle difficulty - gives your enemy, the defender, and unfair advantage

So I hope you can understand why we will be using Normal battle difficulty. Seeing as most battles will be auto-resolved.

[RickFGS]

I understand..but is hard that advantage to the defender....erhh...its midway to veryhard....plus hard isnt much hard then normal...but you re right.you designed this..its your game...so ill take whatever people choose.

[Myrddraal]

Umm, I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.... :sad:

[RickFGS]

Nvm, normal it is.

[Monarch]

I´d say Hard Battles and very hard campaign y? All agree i believe.

I do NOT agree. Normal battles please.

[Myrddraal]

Thats settled then.

[Glaucus]

Actually, I think I read somewhere that the AI takes the campaign difficulty not the battle difficulty when determining the auto-resolve. This is because auto resolve and campaign game is one engine, and the battles are a different engine. So, I think we should have N/N, otherwise the auto-resolves will be totally biased. And since most of us are human, it won't matter if the campaign is normal.

[UltraWar]

H/VH is best for the campaign and N for battles...

the H/VH will allow Rebels to attack other factions, which will make the game intresting

[RickFGS]

When will game begin? 13th July?

[Myrddraal]

Not July....

I won't be able to play till the 13th of June, next week, if you want to start before then I'll join later on in.

[RickFGS]

Next week will be perfect and y June, misstyped it.

[kburkert]

Please dont start the game until myrddaal is back.

[Wishazu]

Im all for playing it however Mydraal thinks is best.

[General_Sun]

Actually, I think I read somewhere that the AI takes the campaign difficulty not the battle difficulty when determining the auto-resolve. This is because auto resolve and campaign game is one engine, and the battles are a different engine. So, I think we should have N/N, otherwise the auto-resolves will be totally biased. And since most of us are human, it won't matter if the campaign is normal.

Do we have an answer to this issue? I think I heard this too.

[Monarch]

Actually, I think I read somewhere that the AI takes the campaign difficulty not the battle difficulty when determining the auto-resolve. This is because auto resolve and campaign game is one engine, and the battles are a different engine. So, I think we should have N/N, otherwise the auto-resolves will be totally biased. And since most of us are human, it won't matter if the campaign is normal.

If somebody could prove this pretty quick, then I'd say normal campaign too.

[Silver Rusher]

I think we should do normal campaign as well just to be safe, I think Glaucus is right but I'm not sure.

[RickFGS]

Fine, normal, lets do it

[Wishazu]

I would like to suggest that we ban the gifting of cities to any AI factions as it is possible to exploit the game in this fashion when playing as the Romans.
The Senate AI is programmed to send its army to attack any unfriendly army that enters 1 turns march of ROME. If you give another city to the Senate then the same behaviour will apply here and so it is possible to get the Senate`s overpowered army at the start of the game to cause mass deathy and destruction. Ive done it plenty of times myself in SP. Believe me this Senate army is impossible for any army at the early stages of the game to stop.

[Glaucus]

Cheers I agree

[RickFGS]

I agree wouldthogugh what are you exactly sugesting? Kill the senate and barbs take over rome? Or rome starts as julii (wich would be fair since its rome) but without the huge army, and if so, is this possible to be done??

[Wishazu]

Im not suggesting anything other than not allowing players to gift cities to the AI factions.