View Full Version : Total War Online: A dream come true?
hellenes
10-22-2007, 14:37
I ve read this rumor that swedish PC gamer magazine hinted that the next TW game after Empire will be an MMORTS...I dont know the details but I remember sending to a CA dev this idea of mine:
"A Gigantic map...that has every little castle, dutchy, county that existed in Medieval times. 100 factions (Knights of Honor has as much) so any player will have the choice to choose any faction he likes.
A living world that is in REAL time and runs 24/7.
Whenever a player starts he makes an account and chooses a faction.
Now he can pick up an army from the available pool depending on the buildings his faction has at that time. Hes allocated with set amount of cash to start. After that he has many options: Either manage his castle/province or engage in diplomacy with the neighbours or or even start a war by attacking a nearby settlement or army.
Any action he is doing is represented as his character as a general and his army as his tool of destruction. His army grows or dwindles depending on his actions.
Now the most important factor (IMO) is what happens when the player is absent? Well his army simply loggs off the game! And his castle is manned by the "PO" garrison of a decent amount of archers/crossbows and militia OR if his faction has more than one players (mostly the popular factions like Byzantium or England) that player is notified to fight to defend the castle. The diplomacy in the case of multiple players that picked up the same faction is treated on a presence/rank level meaning that any negotiations will be engaged with the highest ranking player (meaning clan/faction leader and lower) present at that time OR on a pre set basis or "guidelines" that are given by the absent leader.
All players will be free enough to go wherever they want in real time on a scaled movement rate however with the appropriate consequences like a war declaration or annoyance...
There will be rebel armies in a quide abudant numbers with plenty of little catsles and provinces to expand to...
The characters themselves would aqcuire parameters same as the SP game based on the player's actions with the death of the character the player would either get the heir of that character (so he must make sure that his character gets married) or if there is no heir the player gets to fight a mini civil war and pickes the side, and if that side wins he gets a new character spwaning from the ranks....
Also the world that surrounds the player can be set in the battle engine of the TW games WITHOUT any boundaries and if the sizes of armies are too big for the server to cope with it, the strategic layer can be used in real time as |I said before.
On the unit sizes the player can pick up ANY size he wants the cost of the units will be based on per soldier capita....So if 100 spearmen cost 100 florins to buy and 50 florins to upkeep, 200 spearmen will cost 200 florins to buy and 100 florins to upkeep.
Speaking of which the castle that the player is allocated with generates a fixed amount of money that pays the upkeep cost of anything that the player has in his army.
If the castle of the player is lost his army turns into "bandits" and he will not pay any upkeep for them until he recovers his castle or takes the castle from another player. In the case that the player belongs to a bigger faction he can become a general in the service of the monarch but his army will have to be paid from the crown's coffins but will have the option to recruit soldiers from the crown's castles/cities at his expense (the player generates wealth through looting enemie territories/castles or from booty from the battles and has his personal money).
The crown itslef is an entity thats allocated to the faction/clan leader it recieves a "crown tax" from the other clan members engages in state level diplomacy and generally operates the "big picture" of the clan/faction.
Naval battles will be made controllable and the troops that are present on board will participate in any engagement. No agents will be present in the game since the diplomacy would be dealt through a chat and any other character would be simply part of an agreement (marriage would be agreed through a chat no need for a princess character)...
If at any later point a new player joins the game he will be allocated soldiers/castle etc scalable to the point that the game is at that time so there are no phaenomena like a newbe with peasants against a veteran with gothic troops.
Armour upgrades and soldiers will be tradable, like the player can "upgrade" his byzantine infantry to varangians by "disbanding" the infantry in the castle and having the worth of that unit back (again based on per soldier capita) and by purchasing a unit of varangians the same size (or bigger with extra cost) as the byzantine infantry by paying any difference...
Events will take place in the game at a chronological time through "upgrades" that the developers will release (like chronicles in La2) like the high era upgrade after a year or the mongol invasion patch....
Speaking of UNPLAYABLE factions the mongols or the astecs will be mainly the PvE element that will require HUGE alliances to be forged to deal with them.
The Pope will be a GM character in the game regulating the catholic factions and launching crusades. The orthodox factions will have the patriarch of costantinople as the spiritual leader and most importantly will play major role in the reunification of churchers attempts that will be voted by orthodox players (players that control orthodox factions).
The crusades will be deal in the sense of raids with huge alliances forged to march to the holy land..."
The game will be called Total War Online and players will engage in battles for dominance in full real time...
Fingers Crossed to be true!!!
PS If anyone from Sweden can u confirm any of this?
Mikeus Caesar
10-22-2007, 16:10
Sounds interesting, to say the least. If it is true then it could be fairly cool. I doubt it though.
Akeichi Mitsuhide
10-22-2007, 16:14
Its an idea.
I got a better one. Read.
Same as the above, but instead of controlling an faction on a gigantic map u could make the map even more gigantic and for example in Holland u can play as Holland, Friesland, Utrecht, Gelre and Zeeland while in Germany u can play as any one of the provinces in there, both of those examples controlled by yourself with your own faction name and banner. I think is better in terms of the amount of players who actually gonna play this.
Which brings me to another idea. What if this "Total War Online" would be an game on its own crossing diffrent era's of history, like on one server you play in the Ancient Age(romans, greeks and carthaginians, u know the deal) while in another server you play in the Gunpowder Age with simple Hand Gonne's and very early matchlock Arquebusiers. It would be limited like this: Prehistoric Age - Englightenment Age(Napoleonic Age as you could call it).
In any case, the 2nd line of the 2nd idea is a must cuz it would make Empire:Total War or any other Total War game way to big.
Furious Mental
10-22-2007, 16:14
Fork out every month to play a TW game? No thanks.
Again I say unto you "Source?"
:beam:
Sheogorath
10-22-2007, 17:19
Again I say unto you "Source?"
:beam:
Alas, delicious sauce is notwhere to be had.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-22-2007, 17:56
Fork out every month to play a TW game? No thanks.
Same. I will not pay to play any game,including TW, WOW or anything, online.
Same. I will not pay to play any game,including TW, WOW or anything, online.
Me either. (which is why I love the NO FEE Guild Wars :beam:)
:jawdrop:
It is unclearly for me how they will manage all this, but my dream is to play current campaigns with human-equal ai ...
But I don't like play any game online with human opponent as they seems to be played. I imagine this campaign as C&C, and totally arcade battles, like in MP now... Cavalry is charging, hitting, retiring, charging, hitting, retiring, stupid.
:gah:
I hate MMO's. :inquisitive:
Zenicetus
10-22-2007, 20:13
Sounds dubious to me. MMO TW wouldn't be easy to balance between people who have a life outside gaming (and therefore limited time), and kids living in their parents' basement who live on their computers 24/7.
You'll have to join a faction to get anywhere, and it's inevitable that the highest-ranked players for your faction will be obnoxious clowns... those with the most time to spend online. I've seen it in WoW guilds and it won't be any different here. And the idea of me getting an email message or something when I'm offline and my castle is attacked? I'm supposed to bail out of my day job or anything else I'm doing to run to its defense? Not too realistic. That's the problem with realtime massive multiplayer, in a nutshell.
The appeal of TW as a single player game is that I'm completely in charge of my faction and its fate. I can actually accomplish something, without being a small cog in a big wheel. I admit it would be interesting to see the Medieval map done on a scale that huge, but otherwise... I can't get too excited about it. This doesn't sound like something that would appeal to the kind of person who enjoys strategy games.
If TW has to go multiplayer, I'd rather see just an online version of the current game, with a lobby for finding other players and scheduling matches, and with some way to enforce a time limit per turn so you could complete a game in just a few hours.
Well, it's probably CA's attempt to abandon making AI better... ~D
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-22-2007, 20:32
I would not play a MP Campaigan ethier way. #1, it would take to long, no matter what anyone saids. #2, if someone gets a game gonig with you,and you can "save" it, how do you know that person will play with you again? And #3, for the battles, will you auto-resolve each of them and not fight at least 1 of them?
I like how MP is now. You have to use Tacitcs to actually win. Well, mabye not in MT2W, but in Better TW Games, like STW or MTW, you had to.
RoadKill
10-22-2007, 21:31
That would never work out.
Freedom Onanist
10-23-2007, 10:07
I hate MMO's. :inquisitive:I'm with you there brother.
This, if true, would be the absolute worst possible news for the TW series as far a I am concerned. Absolute pants, an unmitigated pile of vindaloo curry induced excreta with none of the post-pub pleasure pre ring-of-fire agony.
I have no wish whatsoever to play online TW campaigns against an other human, let alone the kind of nobby who inhabits the MMO world - anyone played BF, WOW, etc...?
I like to play on my own terms, when and where I like.
Reading the desription I think this is the wet dream of some RTS clickfest, "clan", MMO addict and not something serious.
A nightmare more like.
:no: :no: :no: :furious3:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-23-2007, 16:33
And Again, any sources or is this just a joke? :inquisitive:
hellenes
10-24-2007, 12:42
I'm with you there brother.
This, if true, would be the absolute worst possible news for the TW series as far a I am concerned. Absolute pants, an unmitigated pile of vindaloo curry induced excreta with none of the post-pub pleasure pre ring-of-fire agony.
I have no wish whatsoever to play online TW campaigns against an other human, let alone the kind of nobby who inhabits the MMO world - anyone played BF, WOW, etc...?
I like to play on my own terms, when and where I like.
Reading the desription I think this is the wet dream of some RTS clickfest, "clan", MMO addict and not something serious.
A nightmare more like.
:no: :no: :no: :furious3:
1st That I read on the TWC IIRC thats why Ive asked about if anyone got the Swedish PCG magazine...
2nd I wish you all the luck of the world while you keep being dissapointed with each SP TW game released year after year the battlemap PO wont get better...So you will just continue coming here and whining about how bad the PO (programmed oponnent) is and how nonexistant the "diplomacy" is...and nothing will change...
Geoffrey S
10-24-2007, 13:11
Ah, I see. It's wishful thinking...
hellenes
10-24-2007, 13:47
Ah, I see. It's wishful thinking...
Does anyone have the swedish PC gamer magazine?
Thats what I was asking....
If this rumor is true then we might get our perfect "AI" that we have been craving for...
Freedom Onanist
10-24-2007, 14:09
1st That I read on the TWC IIRC thats why Ive asked about if anyone got the Swedish PCG magazine...
2nd I wish you all the luck of the world while you keep being dissapointed with each SP TW game released year after year the battlemap PO wont get better...So you will just continue coming here and whining about how bad the PO (programmed oponnent) is and how nonexistant the "diplomacy" is...and nothing will change...What are you talking about? Where have I complained about the AI opponents? Or are you projecting your own disappointments on others?
Firstly, I don't mind the AI, it is a computer game, I accept it within those limitations. As far as I am concerned I can't think of another wargame style game that comes close to keeping me entertained as the TW games do.
Secondly, whilst human opponents can be fun, some (many) of them are no improvement on the AI. I don't mean that from a tactical point of view (though some of them are utter rubbish - armies of cannon etc...), just from a logistical one in terms of getting a balanced game going. You only have to look at most online games to see how fundementally unpleasant they can be. To be honest if I want to play against a human I'll go and visit a friend not fester at home and invent some kind of bollox online persona.
Which brings me on to my major reservation with an online version of TW. The problems of getting someone to consistently a campaign game are just too fraught with problems. Any of the scenarios mentioned to deal with this are just compromises. Games like TW offer me the opportunity to get away and play an interesting and entertaining game on my own terms ie I don't have to polute my time with r0x0r l33t sp3ak "yooffs" who "pwn".
TW online? I'm off to play Monopoly or Risk with real people and friends.
If this rumor is true then we might get our perfect "AI" that we have been craving for...Tosh:thumbsdown:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-24-2007, 15:02
Secondly, whilst human opponents can be fun, some (many) of them are no improvement on the AI. I don't mean that from a tactical point of view (though some of them are utter rubbish - armies of cannon etc...), just from a logistical one in terms of getting a balanced game going. You only have to look at most online games to see how fundementally unpleasant they can be. To be honest if I want to play against a human I'll go and visit a friend not fester at home and invent some kind of bollox online persona.
TW online? I'm off to play Monopoly or Risk with real people and friends.
Depends m8... You can't come on everyday and expect to see good players on all the time. Just have to look awhile.
Freedom Onanist
10-24-2007, 15:08
Depends m8... You can't come on everyday and expect to see good players on all the time. Just have to look awhile.That's just one of my points, I can with the game as it is. I can play it as and when I like.
Anyway, the game is far too complex and time consuming to be able to co-ordinate humans playing it satisfactorily. Let alone all the downsides of online play anyway (true RTS battles all the time? Clickfest City).
Geoffrey S
10-24-2007, 15:22
What are you talking about? Where have I complained about the AI opponents? Or are you projecting your own disappointments on others?
Sounds about right to me.
Mailman653
10-25-2007, 20:15
:gah: Enough said.
:laugh4:
I would like the idea. But Im not sure if this game will work with Internet. Graphics look amazing and I dont think it will be possible.
Hellenic_Hoplite
10-27-2007, 23:02
Honestly I woulden't mind being able to play the campaign map online but if it was an online game only where you had to pay so much money every month I would quite angry. I like to play single player once in a while and not have to deal with real people (yes I know I'm anti-social) but if they can make it so the campaign map can be single and multiplayer that would be great.
No thanks, for all the reasons stated above. That would kill everything good this series stands for, and the last hope that it will improve in future.
Divinus Arma
10-29-2007, 06:07
I see no reason why this, or at least something similar, cannot be accomplished. I doubt the choice of "factions", but rather a "knighthood" with a limited number of units that can be developed upon later. And with this knighthood, you could ally with a factional banner. This would aid you when you were offline as others who ally under your banner would be interested in you retaining your holdings, so that larger armies under this feudal concept could be developed and applied.
Entirely possible.
Hellenic_Hoplite
10-29-2007, 14:10
thats exactly why I would not want an mmorts because I don't want to be worried about my cities getting attacked when Im not online and have to feel like I have to be playing 24/7. now if they could do it the way you play a campaign online like in the game star wars empire at war than I would be happy with it.
We have been talking about it for 6 years, off and on.
The idea is as much as what you have talked about, but that the faction Leaders cannot be a player, they would be AI or a MOD.
And people could become a "titled Lord" of a realm, and those people can add other people to command their armies and run affairs while the Principle is off line.
SO you have economic and military affairs, and depending upon how powerful you become, and how many flock to your flag, you can become an independent ruler, or a powerful vassel of a Lord.
Something many of us discussed years ago. And like this, crops up every now and again.
While the concept I think is a good one, it will be very hard to implement. Striking the balance between game play and functionality.
BUt at present, I believe it is still a pipe Dream.
I would like to give it a go, but I believe it would be a very complicated setup, and very technical, if done right.
Just my opinion.
sincerely
fenir
MaddenKhan2
11-01-2007, 16:46
I would love to see a online campaign! It would be So Intersting, but they could do it in certain ways so it is playable.
Someone from CA, please wade in and stop this!
Please!
Pantsalot
11-02-2007, 23:58
Its an idea.
I got a better one. Read.
Same as the above, but instead of controlling an faction on a gigantic map u could make the map even more gigantic and for example in Holland u can play as Holland, Friesland, Utrecht, Gelre and Zeeland while in Germany u can play as any one of the provinces in there, both of those examples controlled by yourself with your own faction name and banner. I think is better in terms of the amount of players who actually gonna play this.
Which brings me to another idea. What if this "Total War Online" would be an game on its own crossing diffrent era's of history, like on one server you play in the Ancient Age(romans, greeks and carthaginians, u know the deal) while in another server you play in the Gunpowder Age with simple Hand Gonne's and very early matchlock Arquebusiers. It would be limited like this: Prehistoric Age - Englightenment Age(Napoleonic Age as you could call it).
In any case, the 2nd line of the 2nd idea is a must cuz it would make Empire:Total War or any other Total War game way to big.
That's asking too much, take up too much time & effort..
Though I think the existing idea is alright, the only thing that I'm worried
about is how much it will cost & how gd of a computer I would need.
I'd like to know what they do about noobs being attacked by a guy
who has already been on for example a month.. this has been a problem
with RTS MMO's. normally it's just that the server restarts in after a month
or 2 has passed, though some games just protect the noobs by using what
they call a shield which protects them from invasion normally for a week so
that they can get a hand of the game. Though I think that there should be
a sort of system like lvl 20's can attack lvl15+'s
& would like to know whether the person has to just restart if he loses or
can he never be conquered & just has to re-build or delete his kingdom after
a raid?
Hellenes, I gotta give you credit, you haven't stopped your personal crusade to try to persuade CA to go the MMO route.
However, I'm still w/the others. I hate MMOs, and refuse to pay subscriptions. There are plenty of examples that prove that MP games are NOT the way of the future, there's always a balance and a good market for both.
hellenes
11-03-2007, 01:11
Hellenes, I gotta give you credit, you haven't stopped your personal crusade to try to persuade CA to go the MMO route.
However, I'm still w/the others. I hate MMOs, and refuse to pay subscriptions. There are plenty of examples that prove that MP games are NOT the way of the future, there's always a balance and a good market for both.
Sadly even if you dont agree with this there are 3 reasons overthrowing your and others position:
1st The PO (called for intelligence insulting reasons "AI") coding is FAAAAR behind any other techincal progress (like graphics) also its NOT cost effective.
2nd Deriving from above the dissapointment with the PO in EVERY TW release will continue in our lifetime and probably beyond...with all the moaning screaming and whining...
3rd The solution to the problem of subscipion fees is simple: a campaign map based game that doesnt require expensive badwidth servers to run...like Guild Wars...
That's asking too much, take up too much time & effort..
Though I think the existing idea is alright, the only thing that I'm worried
about is how much it will cost & how gd of a computer I would need.
I'd like to know what they do about noobs being attacked by a guy
who has already been on for example a month.. this has been a problem
with RTS MMO's. normally it's just that the server restarts in after a month
or 2 has passed, though some games just protect the noobs by using what
they call a shield which protects them from invasion normally for a week so
that they can get a hand of the game. Though I think that there should be
a sort of system like lvl 20's can attack lvl15+'s
& would like to know whether the person has to just restart if he loses or
can he never be conquered & just has to re-build or delete his kingdom after
a raid?
A noob that has only a castle can be allocated to a geographical place without heated conflicts or even better a standing army could be make VERY expensive to maintain thus even a old timer can find hard to field two full stacks of elites...
Also there is where alliances come into play plus it also boils down to balance the whole thing...
Actually if you read my OP the newebie can start with troops scalable to the situation in this area at the time he joins...
PS sadly my coding experience is 0 I had this idea of making a simple web flash campaignmap on M1TW quality which generates a historical battle after two armies clash and its played online using any TW game...
Akeichi Mitsuhide
11-05-2007, 16:02
Me again, ive been thinking of something more appropiate for people who want to play this game(yet it doesnt exist....yet) but cant play 24/7 due to jobs, girlfriends, in one word: Life.
Simple. You are just one guy in the game being kinda like a soldier without army to fight in, u find a faction to join(your own choice) and u will gain ranks eventually. Now, in the end, people want to be the ruler of their own faction. Lets do it like a regular officer in Romance of the Three Kingdoms 10 on PS2: ur one guy serving your lord and performing orders given by him, fight whenever he wants you to and with more ranks, u can fight as a entire army.
About the army part. I think its best that in one massive army, you control just one unit(of the 2000 troops of your people u got like 20-60) and command that unit to victory. Also abit like Rot3K 10.
Share your thoughts !
I'd prefer a fully implemented multiplayer version of the Grand Campaign first. If they can't figure out how to let us play the different factions against each other without autoresolving and emailing saved games back and forth, I doubt they'll be able to do anything worthwhile with an MMO version.
Pantsalot
11-15-2007, 18:43
There are plenty of examples that prove that MP games are NOT the way of the future, there's always a balance and a good market for both.
There r also examples of games to go for MMO. eg. World of Warcraft
(quickest selling game) Guild wars with the new sequal guild wars 2.
The highly anticipated Warhammer online (won't be out till next year..)
& this is also something new for CA, already having so many fans it would
be a big seller.
Hellenic_Hoplite
11-17-2007, 17:33
MMO's are always the same way for me. I'll play like crazy for about 2 months than get burned out on it, I also don't like to deal with the annoying people. CA if you are reading this PLEASE PLEASE don't make the next total war game an MMO!
Freedom Onanist
11-19-2007, 12:47
The suggestion that a human opponent in an MMO environment is more "inteligent" than the AI is not something that I have ever observed o a consisten t basis. In fact like Helleinc Hoplite human opponents are just annoying after a very short period.
Multiplayer is just a cop-out for game designers nowadays. All too often reviews gush over some multiplayer enabled game as if that is the natural evolutionary end point of PC gaming. As far as I can tell it just means scrimping on AI - after all it who needs it in a MMO game?
Happily, I can't see any realistic way of implementing a MMO campaign game in the TW series. The logistics of getting people you want to play with to play the game with you for long enough is remote beyond vanishing point.
Relief all round.
hellenes
11-19-2007, 17:31
MMO's are always the same way for me. I'll play like crazy for about 2 months than get burned out on it, I also don't like to deal with the annoying people. CA if you are reading this PLEASE PLEASE don't make the next total war game an MMO!
I dont want to state this but Ill be here with the dumb Empire's so called "AI" to laugh and tell to everyone: I told ya!!!
And the whining and crying will continue...
Hellenic_Hoplite
11-22-2007, 17:47
I dont want to state this but Ill be here with the dumb Empire's so called "AI" to laugh and tell to everyone: I told ya!!!
And the whining and crying will continue...
like I said if it could be made into both a singleplayer and multiplayer game fine. I just hope they don't change everything around by making it into an mmo and lose their original fan base.
hellenes
11-28-2007, 16:25
like I said if it could be made into both a singleplayer and multiplayer game fine. I just hope they don't change everything around by making it into an mmo and lose their original fan base.
I agree with you. And they could make it also for LAN games...or even if they could just add battles to the current MP hotseat...
I have to agree with the "naysayers" (to my own sadness...) I just don't think that there is a plausible way to do an online world because you would have to stay online ALL the time, unless there was a way to start an empire say 50-60 turns into the game and just play with it from that point for a couple of hours. To clarify, people join a game that the computer has created that is ABOUT where it should be for a game that has been going for 50 turns (or less, depending on preference) and then it has a time limit that is set by the host. I don't think that is what they have planned or will plan, but that is one of two ways that I can think of to run it and it is by far the easier of the two. All in all, I don't think that it will go beyond the multiplayer online battle phase. * sigh *
I dont want to state this but Ill be here with the dumb Empire's so called "AI" to laugh and tell to everyone: I told ya!!!
And the whining and crying will continue...
What about just to try to make a wellfunctioning AI instead? :dizzy2:
hellenes
12-08-2007, 19:54
What about just to try to make a wellfunctioning AI instead? :dizzy2:
That will cost 40mil euros and run on NASA supercomputers and STILL be 1/100th of the challenge of the human oponnent...
I have to agree with the "naysayers" (to my own sadness...) I just don't think that there is a plausible way to do an online world because you would have to stay online ALL the time, unless there was a way to start an empire say 50-60 turns into the game and just play with it from that point for a couple of hours. To clarify, people join a game that the computer has created that is ABOUT where it should be for a game that has been going for 50 turns (or less, depending on preference) and then it has a time limit that is set by the host. I don't think that is what they have planned or will plan, but that is one of two ways that I can think of to run it and it is by far the easier of the two. All in all, I don't think that it will go beyond the multiplayer online battle phase. * sigh *
Read my OP about what happens if a player is absent...
Hellenic_Hoplite
12-09-2007, 02:56
That will cost 40mil euros and run on NASA supercomputers and STILL be 1/100th of the challenge of the human oponnent...
I think you're joking but if you're not.....
Theres plenty of games with a well functioning AI, A few of them being: Imperial Glory, Starwars Empire at War, Gears of War and Thousands of others.
Marius Dynamite
12-09-2007, 03:37
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
That will cost 40mil euros and run on NASA supercomputers and STILL be 1/100th of the challenge of the human oponnent...
I think you're joking but if you're not.....
Theres plenty of games with a well functioning AI, A few of them being: Imperial Glory, Starwars Empire at War, Gears of War and Thousands of others.
Gears of War AI is no where near as challenging as a human opponent, hence why I can complete campaigns easily but not win every game on multiplayer.
On topic: This Idea would not work because its simply more one way that the other. You are tired of playing football/soccer and want to play basketball, but your trying to play basketball on a football field, it will only work out if you find a basketball court.
Hellenic_Hoplite
12-09-2007, 10:11
Gears of War AI is no where near as challenging as a human opponent, hence why I can complete campaigns easily but not win every game on multiplayer.
On topic: This Idea would not work because its simply more one way that the other. You are tired of playing football/soccer and want to play basketball, but your trying to play basketball on a football field, it will only work out if you find a basketball court.
alright I do admit GoW AI is not as challenging as a human although they do try to perform basic flanking moves and other things. the ironic thing is it seems the battle AI in M2TW is worse than it was in the original MTW.
S.Selim_1
01-12-2008, 10:49
i gotta say..it is impossible and it doesn't make sense at all...but what can make sense is an MMORPG..Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game...now this is possible and fun too...think about warcraft and how it's new online game succeded..they started out as an impressive strategy game and also made a successful MMO game
Personally i hate MMOGs coz most of them are science fiction and fantasies..BUT with a real historical MMOG like the total war series..it would somehow workout (if u don't think too much about it :D)..and if so..i would recommend a game like this to set in the empire total war era......plzzz
With an MMORPG you'd have clans and monthly fees; it wouldn't be Total War anymore, and I for one certainly wouldn't buy it. There might perhaps be a few decades left till the AI becomes smarter than the human opponent...but the AI doesn't have to beat you in order to be a worthy opponent.
Bah, TW singleplayer campaigns all the way.
S.Selim_1
01-12-2008, 11:09
With an MMORPG you'd have clans and monthly fees; it wouldn't be Total War anymore, and I for one certainly wouldn't buy it. There might perhaps be a few decades left till the AI becomes smarter than the human opponent...but the AI doesn't have to beat you in order to be a worthy opponent.
Bah, TW singleplayer campaigns all the way.
Games genres is totaly a matter of taste..some people like to play Strategy games..others like to play MMO games..trying something new wouldn't hurt..i don't know about clans and monthly fees (don't know what that means) but i know warcraft did workout (making a new game genre) and even it's online game was more successful than it's strategy one. tell u te truth i never played a MMORPG but it wouldn't hurt to try
Games genres is totaly a matter of taste..some people like to play Strategy games..others like to play MMO games..trying something new wouldn't hurt..i don't know about clans and monthly fees (don't know what that means) but i know warcraft did workout (making a new game genre) and even it's online game was more successful than it's strategy one. tell u te truth i never played a MMORPG but it wouldn't hurt to try
Well to tell you the truth, I have played MMORPGS for months.
Guild Wars do not have a monthly fee, but most MMORPGs like WoW got. Haf of the WoW success comes from addiction.
S.Selim_1
01-12-2008, 11:27
Well to tell you the truth, I have played MMORPGS for months.
Guild Wars do not have a monthly fee, but most MMORPGs like WoW got. Haf of the WoW success comes from addiction.
yeah i hear these games have tons of addiction problems..anyway..i just thought total war would have more and more fans if they went to this kind of games..but i am pretty sure the next work of CA will be an expansion for ETW..don't believe the source that say the next TW will be online
Elmar Bijlsma
01-12-2008, 23:01
As stated many, many times before, an online version of Total War simply wouldn't work. You either would have to be able to be online 24/7 to defend your empire or wait extraordinary amounts of time waiting for everyone else's turns to come in. Travian for example, requires insane amounts of planning once you get out of the starting positions. I just don't see how it can be done well without frustrating the players. Then again, I'm not a games designer. Who know what clever designs they might be planning.
But a more traditional setup like World of Warcraft where instead of doing quests with a single character I command a general and a small army... hell yeah! I could see that work. Instead of a +1 damage two hander or such as rewards for doing quests you could acquire more troops, armour and weapons upgrades, extra arrows for your archers, etc, etc. I would dig that. I would dig that a lot.
hellenes
01-13-2008, 04:16
As stated many, many times before, an online version of Total War simply wouldn't work. You either would have to be able to be online 24/7 to defend your empire or wait extraordinary amounts of time waiting for everyone else's turns to come in. Travian for example, requires insane amounts of planning once you get out of the starting positions. I just don't see how it can be done well without frustrating the players. Then again, I'm not a games designer. Who know what clever designs they might be planning.
But a more traditional setup like World of Warcraft where instead of doing quests with a single character I command a general and a small army... hell yeah! I could see that work. Instead of a +1 damage two hander or such as rewards for doing quests you could acquire more troops, armour and weapons upgrades, extra arrows for your archers, etc, etc. I would dig that. I would dig that a lot.
Read my OP...
Total War Online: A dream come true?
yes :yes:
x-dANGEr
01-19-2008, 02:03
Dreams never come true, not this time at least.
Boyar Son
01-19-2008, 21:04
No one like the current MP hotseat? just as good and you dont have to continuosly play...
just end turn, the enemy makes a good move (human player of course) and watch how games are much better.
really no one likes the hotseat? much improvement there, not to mention campaign map kingdom have improved dramticaly. ceasefires and all..attempts to surround...agressive..attacks poorly defended cities...
A Norseman
01-20-2008, 02:15
seen trough the frontpage of the current swedish PC gamer, and there is notting about any tw games, news as big as this would have dominated, i am sure.
No one like the current MP hotseat? just as good and you dont have to continuosly play...
just end turn, the enemy makes a good move (human player of course) and watch how games are much better.
really no one likes the hotseat? much improvement there, not to mention campaign map kingdom have improved dramticaly. ceasefires and all..attempts to surround...agressive..attacks poorly defended cities...
You still can't play hotseat online can you? Last time i checked the only way to play the hotseat campaign was on the same computer... and thats just boring and inconvenient.
DaCrAzYmOfO
01-21-2008, 08:08
well make something like hot seat but have the players send a vote request on whether or not to send all available armies to assault a certain opponent.
That would be fun......at least only if you had tons of people online
And about the factions...someone mentioned about knights and lords instead of controling entire factions. Sounds great...just make the castles able to field many more troops instead of just covering the cost of 3 units of peasants lmao
How about simply allowing multiplayer in the form of Campaign mode as well as Battle Mode? A simple 2-8 player lan party thing... that way, a group of friends can designate times to play when they are all free, and that way nobody is ever absent from the game. That's the one feature of Total War which I have always wanted to see.
How about simply allowing multiplayer in the form of Campaign mode as well as Battle Mode? A simple 2-8 player lan party thing... that way, a group of friends can designate times to play when they are all free, and that way nobody is ever absent from the game. That's the one feature of Total War which I have always wanted to see.
I'd like to see that, but IU think it will be very unstable. And when player 1 fights against 2, the others will be waiting...
The Wandering Scholar
02-01-2008, 22:42
If you all know eachother/ are experienced TW players then you will understand that battles can take time. Plus they'll get their go. What a feature that would be though, Rtw2?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.