R:TW in PCPowerPlay (Aus)

[Alrowan]

hi there people, especially us lucky buggers in aus, rome is due to be released in the 2nd quarter 2003 they claim, so hopefully its my b'day pressie. Some other interesting things to note in the article was the mention of up to 8 players online in a campagin game... now im not sure if thats a misinterpretation, but it sounds hopeful. There are some good pics and all.. cya

[Gaius Julius]

Thanks for the info.
Keeping my fingers crossed, but still refusing to believe it.
Just sounds to good to be true. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Jan. 20 2003,21:51)]hi there people, especially us lucky buggers in aus, rome is due to be released in the 2nd quarter 2003 they claim, so hopefully its my b'day pressie.
Are you sure that's not the release date for Viking Invasion? Because it's due out in May which is 2nd quarter. I can't imagine they'd release it that close to VI because it would reduce VI sales. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

But I'm going to go and have a look at PC PowerPlay for the rest of that info.

Cheers for the tip Alrowan.

[Vertigo10]

Damn Either it really is coming out Spring 2003, or CA is playing the world's most cruel misinformation joke I've ever seen.

-Vert

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ] Some other interesting things to note in the article was the mention of up to 8 players online in a campagin game...

Screw when it comes out

How about a word for word replay of the paragraph where it implies a MULTIPLAY CAMPAIGN

Go ahead scan it and post the article Put it up for a day then take it down.

Be bold, Be Brave, Be stupid, I don't care, I just wanna know if MULTIPLAY CAMPAIGN is for realllll??

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

[Lord Romulous]

I am actually going to go against the tide here and say that i hope that RTW is not released until late 2003 or early 2004.

am i crazy ? No

The reason i want the date for release to be so late is that i remember the many bugs and missed out on features in MTW that were attributed to an early release date.

so i say release late and get all the features that were in the pcgamer uk article. Release early and we will get 3/4 of the promised features with a ton of bugs.

[Gregoshi]

Calm down Toranaga...breath slow and deep into a paper bag...breath in...breath out...breath in...breath out... Feel better? Didn't think so. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Until I hear it direct from one of our truly wonderful CA guys here, I'm not getting too excited about anything regarding RTW. Just look at the wide range of release dates we've been getting. Time will tell.

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Jan. 20 2003,21:51)]hi there people, especially us lucky buggers in aus, rome is due to be released in the 2nd quarter 2003 they claim, so hopefully its my b'day pressie. Some other interesting things to note in the article was the mention of up to 8 players online in a campagin game... now im not sure if thats a misinterpretation, but it sounds hopeful. There are some good pics and all.
Confirm what Alrowan said. Got it today myself.
. Does say Q2 2003
. States: "There will be a complex diplomacy module to the game where it will be possible to trade resources and units, create alliances and treaties. This will prove particular welcome in Multiplayer, which supports up to 8 players in a single campaign".
. Four new small pics: Elephants trampling troops, Cavalry chopping up Greek swordsman, Egyptian Cavalry infront of the pyramids and a desert battle (Romans vs Egyptians?)

Cheers

[Knight_Yellow]

WRONG

pc gamer and the CA guys both say late 2003 early 2004

im inclined to belive the ppl actualy making the game.


also i doubt that campaign will ever get done since the CA devs have stated in the past that it wouldnt be feasable.

also i hope for christmas release sos i get to play the scotts in VI for a couple month.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]. States: "There will be a complex diplomacy module to the game where it will be possible to trade resources and units, create alliances and treaties. This will prove particular welcome in Multiplayer, which supports up to 8 players in a single campaign".



ToranagaSama, asks that everyone please cover their ears,

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[You can consider this Spam if you like.]

Now you know if this proves incorrect, you Aussies are in BIG trouble. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[dagdriver]

Cool it

You'd think IF multiplayer campaign was there it would be mentioned on the official site, no???

Yet only this is mentioned:
"Rome: Total War also allows up to 8 players to fight epic battles over a LAN or the internet."

[PSYCHO]

arrr... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif ToranagaSama can I make a disclaimer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It wouldn't be the first time that a Mag has gotten it wrong. We are just passing on what info we have.

Cheers

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]also i doubt that campaign will ever get done since the CA devs have stated in the past that it wouldnt be feasable

WRONG

Obviously, you must have missed the thread. In it, several things were said, unsaid and alluded to.

The most important to the above comment being:

"...not with the present engine(s)...."

Also, GJS, himself said he wished for the opportunity to work on the problem, as he wasn't around for the first try.

Is there a problem comprehending this?

My guess is that CA built the engines, and then tried to make a MP game after the fact, based on parameters they set in the outline of the game. Didn't Work

This time around, a bit wiser, they're probably building the engines and making the MP Campaign simultaneously. Loosely, speculating, the engines will fit the needs of the Campaign, rather than having the Campaign fit the limits of the engines.

Plus, given the comments of Michael De Platter in the PC Gamer article, MULTIPLAY CAMPAIGN IS THE ONLY thing that will take gaming to another level. Creating a Multiplay World

THANK YOU http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

well every1 is entitled to their opinion but i dinnae hink sae.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (dagdriver @ Jan. 21 2003,03:40)]Cool it

You'd think IF multiplayer campaign was there it would be mentioned on the official site, no???

Yet only this is mentioned:
"Rome: Total War also allows up to 8 players to fight epic battles over a LAN or the internet."
NO

C-MP issue has too much bad blood. I don't believe CA will confirm anything until they are certain they've got C-MP down pat.

The release of Shogun: Total War, w/o the promised C-MP caused HUGE dissapointment within the "community"; and apparently, the difficulty in bringing it about, also, caused some 'contention' within the ranks of CA itself. C-MP is a sore point every which way you look at it.

Sooo, no I don't think it will be on the official site, but I do think it will be "alluded" to until......

Obviously, as the Hype buildup continues for RTW, people outside of CA, namely the game mag folks, will get glimspes of C-MP and word will leak out. Probably with intent.

Look at how the news of RTW was "leaked", it wasn't on the "Official" site, was it?

Well, that's the way "I" see it.

ToranagaSama, a VERY happy camper, for the moment.

PC Gamer Article, next to last paragraph:


Quote[/b] ]"Let's close with the line that led Michael to realise that he was speaking in marketing gibberish. "The first thing we're going to deliver is the most spectacular battles ever seen in a game; genuinely jaw-droppingly; "that's not a real screenshot" spectacular. Then we're going to give people the richest, most immersive strategy game they've ever played. Then we're going to make sure that absolutely anyone can enjoy it, from hardcore Total War fans, to casual RTS gamers, to people who've never looked at a strategy game before. Then we're going to put these things together and hopefully give people a game world that they can totally lose themselves in. We're taking all the experience of the last five years working on Total War and revolutionizing the genre of epic battles which we created with Shogun.""

[Emphasis Added.]

Forgive the typos, but if you study the above paragraph, from the PC Gamer article, especially the red highlighted parts, a couple of things should JUMP out atcha

First, MDP uses the term "World"; Second, is that CA is taking ALL the experience, which MUST obviously include their efforts at Campaign Multiply

Upon my first reading of the article and paragraph, I felt and feel that MDP is speaking of a Multiplay Campaign World. While the article talks of a good many wonderful things, NOTHING save a C-MP "World" is REVOLUIONARY in the manner that the article hypes.

I cannot wait until E3 that's when we'll find out the deal. When the heck is E3 anybody know the date?

[Acronym]

Cavalry chopping up Greek swordsman

Greek swordsmen? Must be post alexander, hellenistic era or something. I've studied greek history in detail but I must have missed something because I never heard of greek swordsmen. Greeks charged en mass with Sarissa's, with crappy swords as alternate weapons, never heard of a specialized greek swordsman unit though. Anyone got info on this?

[PSYCHO]

The pic looks like the late period but I'm not certain they are Greek on second glance..the shield for one is sus. I guess they could be Carthaginian.

Who am I ?:

The Helmets are dark (leather?), have a red crest running vertically from atop front on down to the base at the back. The Cheek guards are squarish. There is also a goldish / bronze pattern also running vertical from the front, over the skull to the back in a band..as well as around the helmet horizontally just above the eyes. The face of the Helmet is open.

The Unit has armbands around the elbow and wrist.
A dark breastplate (leather?)... possibly a vest, with a what looks to be a small metal breastplate fixed on the upper chest.

A thick Roman looking belt with larger squarish segments equi-distant around it's circumference.

A white 'skirt' with two red strips at its' bottom running around the girth.

Sandals that have the upper part of the foot exposed.

What looks to be a gladius... short sword.

An Octagonal wooden shield, with a central metal buckle similar to the Viking fashion.


Any takers?

Cheers

[Alrowan]

ok, well im back with one small bit of info i forgot to mention. It also states that the game engine actually runs SMOOTHER that M:TW and is LESS resource hungry.. im wondering about that, along with the release date... and wasnt vikings due MARCH?

[Knight_Yellow]

Alowran where u getting this info??? pc gamer states that it runs a little higher than mtw not smoother. also go take english lessons as he is not refering to a mp campaign and im willing to bet a £1000 that hes not, he is infact refering to the standard battle MP. Im afraid ur letting ur hope for a campaign cloud ur common sence.

maybe there will be maybe there wont i couldnt care less cos it would be boring as hell.

1 "cumon make ur move"

2 "no i gotta check my guvnors for acumen"

1 " cumon or ill kick u"

2 "wait ur turn, oh wait how cum........."


campaign mp is a joke sure it sounds cool but cummon it would be impossible since all 8 ppl would have to be on for days to complete it, even if it was email based wat if sum1 got bored? or their comp crashed then all 8 would be screwed.

[Rosacrux]

Acronym

Might be an implementation of the "Thyreoforos", a Grek unit of the 1st-2nd BC century, modelled after the Roman legeonarii of the time. They carried an oval shield, called "thyreos" (hence their name) and some form of chain mail (like the roman lorica hamata, perhaps) and weilded swords - also they had a couple of Javelins.

Might be, but still some people (and I hope CA stuff doesn't has those too) seem to think hoplites fought with swords. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Allthough, hoplites never had sarissa either, just plain, good-old 2-meter long spears. Only the macedonian phalanx (non hoplite phalanx) had sarissa, those deadly six meter long pikes.

[Efrem Da King]

its from a different mag knight. This is an aussie one.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]also go take english lessons

That might help So would graduating from High School. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ]maybe there will be maybe there wont i couldnt care less cos it would be boring as hell.

Dude, then why don't you just be quiet?? Or, go find a chat room.

We got it. You don't like it. You don't want it. You don't think it. Is there anything else you need to say on the subject?

Gosh, does the world revolve around you or something.

ENOUGH

BTW, did you happen to miss the title of this thread?

PCPowerPlay, that's where he's getting the info. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[ToranagaSama]

Since you guys are examining the accuracy of the pics. I was wondering if any notice in the Movie, that when the Romans go into the Turtle, that there are NO swords visible.

There s/b swords thrusting between the shields

[Leet Eriksson]

Lets hope this Mp campaign is true...also i want my SYRIAN ARCHERS

[Asmodeus]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Jan. 21 2003,05:18)]Alowran where u getting this info??? pc gamer states that it runs a little higher than mtw not smoother. also go take english lessons as he is not refering to a mp campaign and im willing to bet a £1000 that hes not, he is infact refering to the standard battle MP. Im afraid ur letting ur hope for a campaign cloud ur common sence.

maybe there will be maybe there wont i couldnt care less cos it would be boring as hell.

1 "cumon make ur move"

2 "no i gotta check my guvnors for acumen"

1 " cumon or ill kick u"

2 "wait ur turn, oh wait how cum........."


campaign mp is a joke sure it sounds cool but cummon it would be impossible since all 8 ppl would have to be on for days to complete it, even if it was email based wat if sum1 got bored? or their comp crashed then all 8 would be screwed.
You do have a point here.

How exactly would a multiplayer campaign work? I'm sure it can be programmed (CIV3 has multiplay - albeit a different type of game and having Simultaneous moves cuts down on the micro-management time delay.)

But how would the battles work thats my question. Would everyone else have to sit and wait??? Or if two sides have a battle would the other players be able to watch? That would be pretty cool.

But it would still take a long time to complete a campaign and then you have all the problems of disconnetion etc. I'm not sure if its feasable but i'll admire CA if they can make it work.

[Swoosh So]

Lol why even waste time talking about mp campaign its not going to happen, Show me one line where ca have mentioned it for rome total war, there isent one. We all want it but it aint going to happen.

Swooooooooooooooooooooosh

Keeping it real

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

[Acronym]

Multiplayer campaign might work if each turn is limited in time. Certainly real leaders and generals had time against them, so I don't like a mp campaign would allow 2 days for 1 turn. I did read something about the campaign being semi-turn based, whatever that means.

Anyways, if someone hosted they could always set the time limit per turn. Besides, it's better the option for mp campaign at least be available for us to decide whether or not to play.

[Spino]

2nd quarter 2003? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

One of the developers (JeromeGrasdyke) said that the 3rd quarter 2003 release originally reported by www.gamestar.de was Activision's official word on the matter.

However Jerome also said it was far more realistic to expect Rome Total War by the end of the year. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Greeny]

If there is a multiplayer campain (and I'm far from convinced there will be) I think the best and most sensible system would be:

Strategic stage:
in the PBEM style, each player in turn plays their turn then emails the file to the next player until all players have moved, (time to take turn by arrangement probably 24-48 hours max)

then

Battle stage:
A list is made of all battles to be fought that turn, and players agree between them when they will play them online.
Or they could both agree to autoresolve. A time limit could probably be agreed apon for this stage, after wich all remaining battles are autoresolved.

It's a complicated system requiring a lot of co-operation between players, but due to the amount of time it takes to play a turn and fight all the battles involved, everyone being online to play would not be tenable IMHO.

If people drop out contol could revert to the A.I. or another person could take over. A similar PBEM system to this is used in Civ2 multiplayer PBEM, but without the real-time battles obviously.

[Knight_Yellow]

PS. for all those who thought flaming me their was funny ur all bloody wrong.....

i was refering to him qouting pc gamer i did not say that the aussie mag had said anything i brought the devs and pc gamers opinions into it.


so there ill eagerly await ur appologies.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

As long as the Total War series remains turn based I do not ever believe there will be a multiplayer campaign. The time and logistics involved are all but impossible. Those of you screaming from the mplayer camp don't seem to take this into account. Who in their right mind is going to sit there quietly at the end of a turn where they are not involved in any battles and stare calmly at a "please wait" screen for two hours while 2 other players are involved in a eight thousand man battle just so the entire 8 player group can advance one year/season? What about those who are down to a couple of provinces and have no money hence need less than a minute to plan moves for the coming turn versus the micro-management necessary by the player who controls two thirds of the map and has a million florins/denarii? A game of this type simply involves too many uncontrollable time related factors. You would have to enact rigid time control and unit limits that would destroy the enjoyability of gameplay. Most of us only have an hour or two a night maximum to devote to playing a game and I fail to see how a multiplayer campaign could be accomplished in such a short period of time. I'd loved to be proven wrong, however, I'm too much of a cynical realist to believe it possible to even dream about the potential inclusion of any type of multiplayer campaign in RTW.

[Alrowan]

people forget that you can do a turnbased game with turns being simultaneous, and all move ments happening when all have ended thier turn

[Acronym]

If the turns were time based, meaning you only get a certain amount of time per turn, it's possible.

BTW, if we can zoom in on a battle from the strategic map, then maybe we can have multiple battles at once. It would be confusing, and you may have to let the AI control one of your armies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif But I don't see any other way considering the time contraints.

[Kraellin]

toronaga,

this, the holy grails of TW, is also a wish of mine. saying that, i wouldnt get my hopes up too much. mags do get things wrong and words like 'campaign' can have more than one meaning. a house built of straws and all that.

on the other hand, i do see your reasoning here and i fervently hope that you're right. even a sloppy, buggy, half working, kick you out of the game 70% of the time, would be better than no mp-c at all :) and, we do know that CA has some pretty bright folks working there and have surprised me nicely more than once for the features they come up with.

now, as to all those that feel an mp campaign game wont or cant work, or would be too slow and cumbersome or would have to be played by email or something, you shld really dig up my thread on how to make the entire thing work...and work well. in fact, if CA does come up with an mp-c, i want credit on the box and in the game credits :) ask a few of those around here about that thread. it's actually not that hard to do an mp-c, especially if you're redesigning the engine, which they have/are. i worked that thing out quite nicely, and it was frankly a bit of genius (*pats self on back* ...one of my more lucid moments). heck, even if they auto-resolved all combat for it, i'd be happy, though that wasnt what my original idea was about.

no doubt that thread is long buried, maybe archived somewhere. tosa, you got a copy of it somewhere? there were a LOT of good ideas in that thread, and certainly not all by me by a long shot. amp and i have had a couple good threads going on ideas for the game also. those things shld be saved for posterity. my fingers get tired re-writing these same things over and over :)

toronaga, i really do hope you're right. i'd absolutely love to get some of these folks into an mp campaign game :)

K.

[Acronym]

Kraellin

Do you mind discussing your idea for mp campaign, I would sure like to hear it.

[Don Megel]

Ah yes I posted a thread to this effect before I saw these newest posts. If you do find the info or want to disscuss it anew please go here R:TW C:MP (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=5276)

[muffinman14]

I hope the c-mp will be implanted in the game.

[muffinman14]

But RTW doesnt have anymore 'turns' right. Everything happens over eal time. If Im wrong I hope this will be in the game when it comes out.

[Knight_Yellow]

nope its still turn based. a dev said that so im just the mesenger

i get this sorta idea.....

ur turn starts and u see all ur provinces etc. right and where u drop ur army will decide where it will fight ie. if u drop ur army on a hill it will fight on a hill.


i think what he meant by u will be able to see them moving is that when u end ur turn ur army then marches to that location like in that ww2 game like total war.

infact u know what? im bettin the guy in pc gamer wrote it wrong or didnt say it right since a rts with turns doesnt seem right?

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Jan. 21 2003,17:11)]PS. for all those who thought flaming me their was funny ur all bloody wrong.....

i was refering to him qouting pc gamer i did not say that the aussie mag had said anything i brought the devs and pc gamers opinions into it.


so there ill eagerly await ur appologies.
But you asked what his source was even though the topic title is the source.
I am sorry if I offended you though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

[Knight_Yellow]

thats better

it takes courage to admit u where wrong.

as ive done many times... nut i was right this time

muhahahahah

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

[Dijeeh]

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Jan. 21 2003,12:36)]
Quote[/b] ]. States: "There will be a complex diplomacy module to the game where it will be possible to trade resources and units, create alliances and treaties. This will prove particular welcome in Multiplayer, which supports up to 8 players in a single campaign".



ToranagaSama, asks that everyone please cover their ears,

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[You can consider this Spam if you like.]

Now you know if this proves incorrect, you Aussies are in BIG trouble. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

I didn't do anything wrong

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]this, the holy grails of TW, is also a wish of mine. saying that, i wouldnt get my hopes up too much. mags do get things wrong and words like 'campaign' can have more than one meaning. a house built of straws and all that.

on the other hand, i do see your reasoning here and i

Thank you Kraellin, I was beginning to think I was the only one who could read. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The thing that gives pause for cause, is that they appear to be a bit more ambitious that we could have imagined. 8 players in a Campaign World. Not much to go on, but, again, it appears much like what was discussed in THAT thread. Creating a "World" seemed the only way to go.


Quote[/b] ]no doubt that thread is long buried, maybe archived somewhere. tosa, you got a copy of it somewhere? there were a LOT of good ideas in that thread, and certainly not all by me by a long shot. amp and i have had a couple good threads going on ideas for the game also. those things shld be saved for posterity. my fingers get tired re-writing these same things over and over http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Along the same vein, maybe I'm dull, and just can't get the hang of the Search engine, but I can't seem to pull ANY threads prior to December.

If this is correct, then would one of you please search for a thread started by me, ToranagaSama, re C-MP, its the same thread that K mentions. I don't recall the title, but either Kraellin or it might have been Papewio had a significant post to the thread.

The theme was a "detailed" dicussion on the structure of C-MP. I believe it was in the beginning of November. A couple of days later I left on a road trip and it sorta died. It was a pretty deep thinking thread with participation from GJS. I've searched for this thread a few times and would like to continue it.

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


Quote[/b] ]toronaga, i really do hope you're right. i'd absolutely love to get some of these folks into an mp campaign game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Sooooo, W-O-U-L-D I. Here's to hoping, I believe in CA. They wouldn't do the "Rome" they are doing and leave us hanging AGAIN Besides, reading between the lines is something I do pretty damn well. I've made a few bucks doing so.

Later, ToranagaSama is going to go down to the basement and find those old cans of [i]WhompAss, leftover from his Half-Life days and give em a good dusting. Finally, we may be able to separate the men from the boyzzz.

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

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Oh, btw, do you remember how GJS, Mr. Multiplay, was "pulled" from working on "fixes" to the existing MP, and put on a "Special" project? I think it interesting, that "immediately" he became VERY interested in our comments on C-MP. Now, he's so involved with work (or did his wife bring the hammer down?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) he's gone mum. Hmmmm..... I wonder if that email address he gave is still working....

Anyway, I'm a believer. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

he wasnt moved he was taken out by the french

trust me u dont want to know why id have to kill u.

lets just say those hamburgers u americans eat r the only thing keeping u alive so eat eat eat

PS. no i havent been up for 36 hrs and no i havent just finnished my 4th bottle of wood pecker.

FREEDOM

[ToranagaSama]

OK, OK, OK, I'll let you Aussies off the hook on one condition.

Could one of you email the author of the article and confirm that "8 players in a Campaign" was not a typo or misquote and was intended to imply a Multiplayer Campaign capability?

Either that or provide me with the author's email address. Perhaps, Tosa or someone, could authorize the email as an "official" inquiry from the Members of the .org??

Hmmm...tommorrow I'll think I try and find Michael De Platter's email.

In the event anyone reading from CA and/or its affiliates is reading this, ToranagaSama is more than willing to sign a Non-disclosure Agreement.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Jan. 23 2003,00:48)]he wasnt moved he was taken out by the french

trust me u dont want to know why id have to kill u.

lets just say those hamburgers u americans eat r the only thing keeping u alive so eat eat eat

PS. no i havent been up for 36 hrs and no i havent just finnished my 4th bottle of wood pecker.

FREEDOM


Does anyone know whatttt he's talking about?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Translation??

Oh well, I guess its just more SPAM (http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/spam.gif)

[Kraellin]

toronaga,

the thread i'm referring to was started by someone other than you and me, i think. he posted some ideas that were basically about doing the mp-c thing under the turn based system. a few folks responded and then i joined in a posted my idea on the whole thing. it may have even been in the dungeon, but may have been on the old board too. it was a while back. i kind of took over the whole thread with others now commenting more on my ideas than on the original author of the thread, and i kind of apologized to him for hijacking his thread. he also sort of disappeared for a while, so maybe it was you, when you left there for a while.

as for the jist of the thing, you dont do the campaign in turns. that's the entire problem with the thing and why it was so difficult to do in the first place back in stw. the timing thing just screws it all up for turn based. you make the campaign real time, or semi-real time, and then you, the player, are only ONE man in ONE army. that's the other major point. you dont play every battle. that's why you have other generals. you ONLY play those battles in the army you have direct command over. this resolves all the timing problems because you dont have to be in two places at once to resolve the battles. very simple.

now, you dont have to have it in real real time. you can do a tick based thing or you can do a distance based thing. either way works. once you drop certain assumptions and fixed ideas, it's really very simple. agents and all the other things fall right into place also. if an agent moves across the board point by point in a real or simulated time frame, he gets there when he gets there. no dropping him instantly into the next province. same with armies, same with ships and same with all units on the board. there would be a small need for common paths, perhaps, like roads or trails or soemthing, but that's easy enough, and you could do it even without those. it's just not that tough. this adds in the whole VERY realistic time delay factor that is currently missing from the game. you're about to clash with a major army that you'd rather not at the moment...will your agent reach the enemy soon enough to negotiate a truce? will your ships reach sicily in time to save it? stuff like that.

what happens if you are currently fighting a battle with someone else. your army is engaged. how do you command your other troops and agents? lol. you dont, so dont go into battle. you're the bloody king. but, if you do, then you are currently out of communication and things may be happening elsewhere that need your attention. you want real? this would be real. you, the king are going on a crusade? better turn control over to a trusted heir while you're gone, cause you're going to be busy.

see, this is the ONE thing that is truly missing from the game in all the TW games...real time lag. there werent any phones or telegraphs or email or anything like that in those days. ok, you know that, but the game doesnt know that. we currently move units around like some sort of magic is going on. what we need are messengers/couriers. you write up your orders on a parchment, affix your was seal on it, hand it to a courier, and point him in the right direction. days, weeks, or even months later, the message is delivered, with all the incumbent banes that message lag like this could cause. nations rose and fell on the speed of their couriers at times.

the king is in northumbria. his armies are scattered far and wide. he's currently got campaigns going in germany, spain and egypt. he gets word that a massive army is approaching his egyptian forces, but he's not sure if the general down there knows of this. maybe he got word through a spy, or an ally, or whatever, but he's fairly sure his general in egpyt doesnt know it's coming. timing was everything. this would add that factor into the game and resolve the problem of folks waiting around for battles because the person they were supposed to fight is already fighting with one of his other armies.

now, i've really no idea if any of this will ever be used by CA; it was just a suggestion made some time ago. there's prolly several variants that would work also. let's just hope that CA has found a good one and that they are even looking at the idea of an mp-c.

K.

[Kraellin]

now, if you digested all of that from the last thread, you'll realize there is a bit more to an mp-c. the most notable thing is the length of the current campaigns and keeping everyone is the game to the end of the thing. so, you either need to be able to save the thing and everyone quit and start later on, which rarely works well, in my experience, or, you need to allow for folks to come and go and not disrupt the game too awfully bad.

since i like the later solution better, how do you work this out? other than the host himself, this isnt all that difficult. if it's just an 8 player game, you have 8 player factions being played and the rest are controlled by the ai, just like the current campaign. if i'm not the host and playing england and i want to leave and do leave, then the ai takes over my faction. or, as i leave, i could designate whether i wanted to abandom my realm to the ai or another player or either. the ai would instantly take over, but if i had designated that another could take over, then the game would allow another player to join the campaign and run my faction. in this case i could not come back and just boot him. if i just allowed the ai to take over, then i could come back, if the thing was still running, and take it back again from the ai...same faction only.

now, if the host leaves, we all know that in the current mp games, the game crashes. that's it. game over. but, that doesnt have to be. there are two ways around this. one is a bit tricky and i'm not sure it's really been perfected and that is a hand-off of the server to another person. you temporarily suspend the game, transfer everything to the new host and start up again.

the other way is much more reliable...dedicated servers. and, there are two ways to do this also. you can have servers, owned by gamespy, activivision or CA that just run constantly. no player is the host, so anyone can come and go as they please. very neat, but game companies have to flip the bills, and so it doesnt get done a lot on retail releases unless the game is pay for server thing.

the other way is where the players set up dedicated servers. some player sets up a dedicated machine runs the game on it in host mode. the downside to this is that you often then cant join your own game. you'd need either two machines or some sort of trickery to do it. some games do allow hosts to join their own game, so i suppose it's just a matter of how things are coded. but this seems to be the preferred method for normal retail games with mp capability. and, one of the nice things about this is that you can use things like linux to host. linux is VERY stable for the most part and quite efficient and makes an excellent dedicated player server. a lot of the retail games have gone this way. the most recent i played on was battlefield 1942. so, it's a known solution and would work nicely in an rtw mp-c. piece of cake :)

there's a lot of minor things that also come up, but i believe that covers most of the major ones, aside from having to do the actual coding ;)

K.

[Magyar Khan]

limit the sides, perhaps a smaller map
limit teh features

let people make up their turn (like PBEM)
process the data of the turn

when battles occure let people fight tehir battles. and perhaps continu campaignon a later day.

[GilJaysmith]

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Jan. 23 2003,04:41)]Oh, btw, do you remember how GJS, Mr. Multiplay, was "pulled" from working on "fixes" to the existing MP, and put on a "Special" project? I think it interesting, that "immediately" he became VERY interested in our comments on C-MP. Now, he's so involved with work (or did his wife bring the hammer down?? ;) ) he's gone mum. Hmmmm..... I wonder if that email address he gave is still working....
Sorry, no payment for reading between the lines this time. I wasn't pulled from MTW MP fixes, I had a limited amount of time for them before the next project started... I've always been interested in comments about a Total War multiplayer campaign, but always with the proviso that you weren't getting it in MTW... and I haven't posted in a while as part of a new year resolution to spend a lot less time on the forums now I have nothing in particular to say...

And Sarah bringing a hammer down is a fearsome thing to behold, and probably had something to do with my decision...

If you can find my Hotmail address you're welcome to ask me further questions, but as is the law with Hotmail accounts, I hardly ever check it :)

[Knight_Yellow]

its gil hes here

tell us all u can about RTW oh mighty one. leave nothing not even the smallest details.

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

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (Acronym @ Jan. 21 2003,04:03)]Cavalry chopping up Greek swordsman

Greek swordsmen? Must be post alexander, hellenistic era or something. I've studied greek history in detail but I must have missed something because I never heard of greek swordsmen. Greeks charged en mass with Sarissa's, with crappy swords as alternate weapons, never heard of a specialized greek swordsman unit though. Anyone got info on this?
Well, was looking through some books and seems the "Greek swordsman" is most likely a Cathaginian unit. Most likely a Celtiberian Hispanic conscript. The Unit has all the same uniform, greeko headpiece, armbands etc etc. The only thing amiss is the sword. The Unit should carry the meat clever swords (forget the name) not the gladius.

Cheers