Rome: Multiplayer Campaign!?!?

[Grenzer]

The folks at Activision/Creative Assembly really should use the opportunity of Rome Total War to put in a Multiplayer Campaign engine.
This would not be hard to do, as the campaign is turn-based. Have a host, and the individual players execute their moves, which are sent in an encoded e-mail to the host. When all are received and input, the computer executes all the moves simultaneously. Technically, this would not be hard to do. If battles need to be resolved, then either side could choose to command the army personally, and the battle would need to be fought and a result file e-mailed to the host computer prior to the next turn starting. The only criticism I've heard of a multiplayer campaign is that it would take forever. Yes, you would have to wait for everyone to e-mail their moves or battle results to the host computer, but so what? You do one move a night, the campaign takes a long time (maybe even a year of real time) A slow moving campaign is a GOOD thing, as that would give the players time to negotiate alliances, plan strategy, etc. (which is one of the fun parts of a campaign with real players) It is a different paradigm than hanging out on game-spy looking for a pick-up battle. A multi-player campaign would be ideal for friends who want a long-term game, and online clans who are looking for a more meaningful challenge than the latest ladder ranking.
If folks agree, please send e-mails to Activision/Creative Assembly requesting them to incorporate multiplayer campaigns into Rome. Once they have the multiplayer engine in place, they can release it (as an add on) for Shogun and Medieval, and make even more money. Everyone wins with this.
Creative Assembly E-mail:
info@creative-assembly.co.uk

[jeffreyLebowski]

seriously....if i see one more multiplayer campaign post i'm going to cry like a little girl. it's not going to happen. it's not feasible, it'd be too slow, and no one would play it. CA staff have been on these boards saying the same exact thing. besides, rtw's campaign map is all one contiguous battle field, there are no more individual territories. it's also semi-real time from what was described in the PC Gamer article.

[ToranagaSama]

jeffreyLebowski,

I believe there was a CA post that alluded that there would be no C-MP with the PRESENT Totalwar engine(s).

Rome brings forth a NEW engine, in which new things will be possible.

If you read the last paragraph of the PC Gamer article very carefully, I personally believe that it read Campaign Multiplay I think Michael De Platter makes a sneaking allusion that following the initial RTW, will be a multiplay campaign of some sort.

Grenzer,

Please accept my empathy, and join the C-MP wish club along with the rest of us members. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

JFYI, everthing you state appears quite sensical, and I assure you has been discussed THOROUGLY since the original Shogun days and rehashed THOROUGLY in latter Shogun days and in MTW times. Including a bit of reluctant CA feedback on the issue.

C-MP was initially promised with the original release of Shogun, but CA seems to have had great difficulty in implementation and was not included in the original release.

Shortly, after release, CA again promised C-MP to be added at a later point. Unfortunately, after some effort, the idea was abandoned, proving too difficult to implement. To the chagrin of the community CA NEVER illuminated us to what difficulties they were having. Any comments alluding to such difficulties are PURE speculation on the part of the poster.

Though, certain difficulties are a bit obvious with others simply a matter of opinion.

CA has since stated, quite emphatically, that there will be NO C-MP. After a bit of contention, I believe (memory may be fuzzy to specifics), but some qualifier was offered. That being, in effect, no C-MP with the present TW engine(s); and after further contention, the last word deems it not to be financially appealing, as there exists some question as to how many would be interested in AND would pay FULL price for C-MP. Would you?

So, there you are.

Now, an Email campaign to bring about a ROME Campaign Multiplay, given the development of new engines, I think is QUITE in order.

I hope you don't mind if I hijack this idea?

Anyone and everyone SERIOUSLY interested, please email with thoughts and ideas on organizing a Campaign. How about a Demonstration with Signs and Placards marching out front of The CA's offices?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

There'll be two Creative Assemblies, one outside and one inside, Under Siege from their fans. How Medieval I like it, I like it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Gregoshi]

ToranagaSama, I think you are reading more into that last paragraph than is really there. But, that is just my interpretation.

Grenzer, I think one move a night is highly optimistic unless everyone in the campaign has no commitments or priorities in life other than playing the campaign. Those who can do a move every night will get annoyed at those who can only manage a move every other night or every third night.

Having said that, I'd love to see a MP campaign. But I believe it would require a trimming down of the battle portion of the campaign. The biggest time commitment is going to be the battles and the biggest headache is going to be scheduling time to fight those battles. If a MP campaign is going to have battles with the same volume as they occur in the SP campaign, it just won't be practical. A MP campaign will have to limit online battles to major engagements and the results having a bigger impact on each faction's army. By impact I mean battle losses not just from casualties but also desertions on the losing side. Otherwise these large battles become a year after year war of attrition World War I style. Imagine an 8,000 man army of which only 2,000 actually make it to the battlefield. Even if all 2,000 were killed, there are still 6,000 men to attack next year. However, if that army also lost an additional 3,000 men to desertion, the army has now been hurt badly and its strategic effectiveness neutralized.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Sorry, didn't mean to start rambling on about my theories on a MP campaign.

I'm for it but I'm not holding my breath. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

how about they create an online world like in that 3d space thingy where u manage ur base but when ur sleeping its still running in real time so ppl can attack u and the comp will manage ur forces whilst u r away.

of course this could be done in diff ways ie. they make a small camp map that has 4-5 players and it runs real time so that those who make turns regularly can do so ie. a turn every 20 mins and the comp will manage the game for ppl not currently their. or the make a massive map with dozens of players witch still runs real time. maybe this would have to wait for ai to catch up but it would work.

just sum thoughts.

[Mr. Juice]

Perhaps a game of Space Invaders could pop up while you're waiting for the other people to make a turn.

Or maybe a jester could dance for you, or possibly a chimp in a jester outfit. And why not, you're all-time king

[el_slapper]

Main problem : it is soooooooooooo long that it is untestable. Low-quality is an issue, as the smallest bugs means endlesses rants. Security means no MP campaign. Doable(and probably rather easily), but untestable. I already imagine the endless rants about bugs, especially those who would appear late in the game(remember the compass bug).....

Maybe, if RTW is faaaaaaar shorter