Campaign online!!

[MILITARYMAN]

Why after all these years have the total war team not deliverd an online only campaign?I mean all we need is a map.Where certain territorys allow incomes,others allow unit building,some allow sea crossing or castle building.
This removes the micro management and keeps it battle orientated.You would choose as you do now what period it will be.Set the starting money and choose your faction.
6 player would be ok for time reasons,i mean surely it,s not beyond em??I know lots of players gave up online because of no campaign online http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

[Gregoshi]

This has been debated even after the cows have come home. If you are suggesting what I think you are suggesting, a stripped down MP campaign, that would have to be the way to go. But there are still issues. Look at the complaints about drops during a 20-30 minute battle. Now imagine investing several hours and have someone drop - or worse, escape out of a losing campaign.

I'm sure if CA could figure out how to make it practical, they'd do it. Some have suggested that the mini-campaigns mentioned for RTW might be an attempt for an online campaign. Who knows?

[MILITARYMAN]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Sep. 24 2003,22:01)]This has been debated even after the cows have come home. If you are suggesting what I think you are suggesting, a stripped down MP campaign, that would have to be the way to go. But there are still issues. Look at the complaints about drops during a 20-30 minute battle. Now imagine investing several hours and have someone drop - or worse, escape out of a losing campaign.

I'm sure if CA could figure out how to make it practical, they'd do it. Some have suggested that the mini-campaigns mentioned for RTW might be an attempt for an online campaign. Who knows?
Good point Gregoshi m8
It wouldnt be as easy as i made it out i agree.But as far as people droping if losing etc.I dont think this would be a problem really.
Most likely you would be playing a couple of online war buddies anyhow.And if someone did drop,the game could be designed to switch their remaining map units to rebels.
Or even divide them between remaining players?
I look forward to RTW and hopefully some kind of alternetive play for all online generals. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Devastatin Dave]

Man, that would be sweet, but job, family, and life in general would have to take a back seat. Could you imagine how long that would take. I seem to remember when STW came out, there were some fellas in the community that played like an email campaign. I don't quite remember since I never played STW on line. Any of our old grizzled veterans remember? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[el_slapper]

Long MP campaigns are really tough, for reasons stated above. In Europa Universalis 2, those rarely go far, and players often switch.

And EU2 doesn't have 3D battles Those would make a MTW MP campaign even more tedious, as everyone would have to wait for other's battles to finish.....

[Templar Knight]

I played EU and EU2 online and it worked ok, but what Gregoshi was talking about, the people dropping out beacuse they are losing is one reason why I wouldn't play the online campaign and why I dont play EU online anymore.

[Kraellin]

hehe, this topic comes up every once in a while and whereas i agree it would be nice to have an online campaign, the task is more daunting than you might first imagine. if you play it as a turn-based game, then you've got the problem of all the battles that have to be played out and others have to sit and wait for all that to happen. very tedious. if you auto-resolve all the battles, you lose that very nice feature of the being on the battlefield and personally fighting it out head to head.

there is a solution, but a few things would have to change. i'll let you speculate for a while, or you can go dig up the old threads on this topic :)

K.

[MILITARYMAN]

Thanks for all the interest guys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I think most of you are thinking to much on the single player campaign side of the game.Which would not work online i agree.
Imagine risk style map movement with MTW battles.
Keeping it simple without spies/different biuldings and micro managment.
All units for your chosen campaign era are available to buy.Only certain units for each faction may be purchased at the start of each go.
And each territory you own gives you an income which you get at the end of each go to purchase fresh units or build castles.
Of course you wouldnt finish in one night so you would have an auto save option.Pluss some kind of punkbuster would be good To detear cheats.
It will be done eventually.......and then losing a battle
Needent mean losing the war. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[hellenes]

They tried to do a mp campaign for shogun but they pulled the plug out at the last point:
the txt files from Loc/Eng/Frontend [Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Title]
{Select Connection}

@[Multiplayer_Campaign_Connection_Types]
@{LAN}
@{Internet}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Server_Name_Prompt]
{Server Location}

@[Multiplayer_Campaign_Connection_Options]
@{Add}
@{Delete}
@{Clear}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Connection_Status_None]
{No Server}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Connection_Status_Dead]
{Dead}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Connection_Status_Alive]
{Alive}

@[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu]
@{Refresh}
@{Connect to Server}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Gamelist_Column_Heading_Name]
{Name}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Gamelist_Column_Heading_Status]
{Status}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Gamelist_Column_Heading_Players]
{Players}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Gamelist_Column_Heading_Turn_Time_Remaining]
{Turn Timeout}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Gamelist_Column_Heading_Move_Time_Remaining]
{Move Timeout}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Serverlist_Column_Heading_Location]
{Location}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Serverlist_Column_Heading_Status]
{Status}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Game_Data_Title]
{Game Data}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Players_Title]
{Players}

@[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Game_Data_Headings]
@{Difficulty}
@{Year}
@{Turns}
@{Map Held}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Campaign_Status_0]
{None}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Campaign_Status_1]
{Recruiting}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Campaign_Status_2]
{Resolving Battles}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Campaign_Status_3]
{Resolving Turns}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Campaign_Status_4]
{Game Over}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Campaign_Status_5]
{Inactive}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Load_Menu_Title]
{Multiplayer Campaign Selection}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Join_Menu_Title]
{Join Multiplayer Campaign}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Setup_Menu_Title]
{Multiplayer Campaign Setup}

@[Multiplayer_Campaign_Difficulty_Values]
@{Easy}
@{Normal}
@{Hard}
@{Expert}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Time_Units_Days]
{Days}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Time_Units_Hours]
{Hours}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Time_Units_Minutes]
{Minutes}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Time_Abb_Days]
{d}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Time_Abb_Hours]
{h}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Time_Abb_Minutes]
{m}

@[Multiplayer_Campaign_Settings]
@{Campaign Name}
@{Host Password}
@{Join Password}
@{Number of Players}
@{Difficulty}
@{Turn Time}
@{Move Time}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Player_Name]
{Player Name}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Select_Daimyo]
{Select Faction}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Start_Regions]
{Start Regions}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Delete_Server_Prompt]
{Delete Server?}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Chat_Room_Option]
{Chat Rooms}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Setup_Campaign_Option]
{Start New Campaign}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Submit_Sub_Option]
{Submit}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Join_Campaign_Sub_Option]
{Join}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Load_Campaign_Sub_Option]
{Load & Play}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Start_Campaign_Sub_Option]
{Start Campaign}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Done_Sub_Option]
{Done}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Delete_Sub_Option]
{Delete}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Details_Sub_Option]
{View Details}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Withdraw_Sub_Option]
{Withdraw}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Resign_Sub_Option]
{Resign}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Duplicate_Player_Name]
{Player of this name has already joined}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_File_Exists_Error]
{A campaign of this name is already active}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Rename_Message]
{A campaign of this name already exists - overwrite?}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Joining_Error]
{Campaign data is corrupted - cannot join}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Joining_Error2]
{Unable to join campaign - incorrect password or faction selection unavailable.}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Hosting_Error]
{Host request rejected - check host password}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Menu_Connection_Error]
{Unable to connect to server}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Resignation_Prompt]
{Resign from this campaign - all data will be lost?}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Deletion_Prompt]
{Delete this campaign?}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_IP_Address_Prompt]
{IP Address}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Port_Number_Prompt]
{Port Number}

[Multiplayer_Campaign_Refresh_Button]
{Refresh}

@[Multiplayer_Campaign_In_Game_Menu]
@{Resume Game}
@{Options}
@{Exit Game}
@{Quit}

and Gilaysmith admmitting it in the link:
http://www.legiontotalwar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=397

The comments yours... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Antalis::]

Yeah, an online campaign would be difficult to make, but why don´t CA let us decide, if we want to play with the risk of a failure?

Also, if you have several friends it should be possible without a problem to play in Lan or online.


Why don´t they let us decide? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Bludhall]

well funny thing is i built something similar to this for an online game once.
It is my humble opinion that an online campaign of sorts is not only possible but well within the reach of this community to achieve.
That is of course if one problem can be solved.
getting battlefield data from the game to an external servers database. One that would be built to hold the campaign type game info.

It all really hinges on being able to supply the game with the necessary data to input untis to the battlefield and getting that same info out of the game when the battle is over.
So if anyone could answer that question for us, that would really answer the whole online campaign question.

Several interesting things have been said here concerning this,

It may indeed be more time intensive to play a campaign game, but thats really up to the participants to judge for themselves. 1 on 1 it might get long and dull, but perhaps if a campaign allowed 10 generals to set up shop and do battle with each other.
The players could easily be marekd as in battle when they are fighting and players will just have to wait for them to get back to do battle with them.

It would not be that difficult to set up stuff like spies and diplomacy for an online map based application that would look and feel similar to the campaign game in MTW, but of course there would be noresource management to speak of, though a army purchasing module would be necessary.

I think the online campaign is just what is needed for this to be a truly great game.
If anyone ever gets a community team on doing it look me up

[Lord Rom]

How about online campaigns that start at a paticular time each night? You could have interested players log on as a paticular faction and have control of it until logging off. Then ai could take control of all factions not logged into. Just a thought. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[MILITARYMAN]

Bludhall mentions a comunity effort campaign?
Well i would be interested in that Bludhall m8
I havent attempted out like that before,but i have played around with level editors etc in the past.And i would be willing to contribute time ideas and effort to such a program.But could we really achieve it ourselves?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Hobot]

Man oh man, would I love to play an online campaign http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I have loads of free time currently, so that's not so much of an issue, though that may change...would be so much more fun, knowing that another player is controlling the strategic and tactical aspects of the game, against me

An idea on mini campaign: Edit the map so that you have a small number of provinces available, for example, a mini campaign of england vs. france, or one involving spain and the almohad lands in North Africa, say up to Tunisia. In these cases all the other lands would be blacked out and unavailable, allowing small games, where not too much time would need to go in per turn on the strategic map...perhaps a time limit of 5 minutes per turn on the strategic map would speed things up as well. As an example, Heroes of Might and Magic worked online, but took many hours of play, and that also had a strategic map, and zoomed in battles which took a long time (though neither was as involved as in the total war games). So anyways, during the battle resolvement phase of a turn (when someone may be in combat, and you just chilling), the players should have looking access to the strategic map, allowing them to decide all their actions during this stoppage in play, and generally speeding things up. A game would still likely not be resolved in one session, but I think it could work with dedicated players http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Just my 2 cents...

[Kraellin]

folks, seriously, read this thread: http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;hl=mpc (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=5037;hl=mpc)

it's here in the entrance hall.

K.

[Hobot]

Further thoughts...

Multiplayer only maps could be made for this. For example, a donut shaped map with any number of provinces from 6-whatever that has water inside and outside the donut. The donut itself would be all provinces. A simple and easy way to play an interesting multiplayer game that doesn't require any changes whatsoever to the campaign structure (other than the map itself). Plenty of games have single player campaigns and multiplayer maps meant for skirmishing against others or AI...this could be done in Total War as well. Perhaps an extra expansion pack of multiplayer campaign stuff for MTW and RTW when that comes out? What do you guys think?

[Hobot]

Skimmed over that thread now Kraellin...the ideas seem quite dissimilar from what I'm thinking of. I believe that all of them speak about using the original huge strategic map that is now in the single player campaign. With my ideas above, you wouldn't need to change a thing about playing the campaign other than the map itself. The movement can all be done simultaneously, with all moves being shown after everyone has ended turn (isn't this kinda how it works with AI...since I see it leave provinces that I've attacked, I assume that it decides its actions on my turn not after). A certain amount of minutes would be given per turn to each player, with the battles being resolved after everyone has ended turn and their movement been displayed on the strategic map. Perhaps even an observer function could be put in for those players that are not in combat that turn, so that they could at least have fun spectating on battles that others are having, and not be bored. Perhaps observer for allies only...if an allied faction is fighting a battle you get to observe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif This need not be a selling point for CA, merely something that people who have a lot of time, and really like the game can get into...anyways the game sells well enough with just minimal multiplayer and the focus on single player.

[Kraellin]

sorry hobot, but ya better go read it again. you've missed the main obstacle. nobody is going to sit there for 2 hours waiting for a battle at the end of a 'turn'.

now, if you're thinking of a 2 player only campaign, that might work, but not when you start getting 4 or 8 players in single campaign. the reason is simple. if i'm in an 8 player campaign, let's say, and i have 7 of my armies attacked, each by a different player, guess how long those other folks are going to have to wait before the game progresses again. i would have to fight each one of those battles separately. the guy i fight last is now so bored he's gone off and gotten married and his kids come back to finish the game.

take another look :)

K.

[Hobot]

What you say is true...so what about the observer idea? And your absolutely right, I think anything above a 4 player campaign would get rather time consuming. But with a small map, 2-4 player campaigns shouldn't be that crazy...

[Hobot]

By the way, Kraellin, do you have any influence on promotions in the forum? I'd really like to post on a topic in the Dungeon, Alchemists Lab that I've been following. It's about medmod 3.09 which I've been playing religiously and wanted to share my observations on...but I'm a lowly junior patron http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Gregoshi]

Hobot, until you are promoted, post your question in a new topic here in the EH. Give it the same title as the post you want to reply to and in a request to copy your post over the the appropriate topic in the Dungeon. One of the moderators or another fine patron of these forums will copy your post for you. You may find it a bit awkward, but a promotion isn't a very long wait for most patrons (several days at worse).

[Jeebus_Frist]

After considering the dynamics of an online multi-player campaign, I am all but positive it couldn't possibly work in a satisfactory manner. Online gaming is all about being able to connect at will and find other gamers ready to conquer the far flung reaches of whatever universe the game in question exists in. From what I've been reading MTW has some serious stability issues with simple online battles. If anyone has ever dropped fifteen minutes into a battle, imagine how frustrating it would be to have the same happen during a campaign that lasts several hours http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Even if CA is able to pinpoint and correct the stability problem, we are still left with the numerous problems within the interior gameplay of the campaign. First and foremost comes turn length. I like to focus on strategy in my campaigns and consequently am known to spend lengthy periods of time moving strategic agents and examining the layout of my forces. Other gamers are likely to hit end turn as quickly as possible to progress into the next round of battles. Even if there were a sixty second time limit for strategic turn it still takes time to click and drag each newly created unit to the province you are defending or garrisoning. Eventually the time limit would become a burden to the player who controls the most territory as he/she would require the most planning and time to implement their plan.

The one thing I simply cannot come up with a way to escape is fighting battles. Let's say there are four people playing an online multiplayer campaign and three have ganged up on the fourth with each one attacking a different province. This would lead to one player having to fight three defensive battles in one round. Obviously this is not a problem for the defending player (in context with the gameplay, not the fact he is being blitzkrieged http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) as he/she will be active in each of the three battles, but what about the three aggressors? In each battle there will be two generals waiting for their part of the round to continue. Since battles can take anywhere from five (I never said I was Napoleon) to thirty minutes, the last of the three battles to be fought could literally take an hour from the time the turn ends and the first battle begins to the start of combat in the final battle. What are these generals supposed to do while they await the outcome of the other battles? Sure it could be set up so that they can watch the ongoing combat rather like the replays we get with MTW, but who wouldn't get bored of observing for an hour?

Lastly, and perhaps as important an issue is the human equation. Playing an online first person shooter requires almost no time. It is so fast paced that you can get in several matches in less than an hour. Not so with our genre. With battles that last as long as they do what happens when you have played for three hours and someone has to leave halfway through a campaign? Should everyone have to stop right then and there? If there were some way to save progress, how would you arrange to get the same players together at a future date? Gaming is about instant satisfaction not about hoping everyone from different time zones can clear their wednesday schedules to continue the campaign? We all agree that the AI can't compete with a human player with any amount of skill, so is allowing the AI to take over for any player, who quits or is dropped, really a viable option? Time is an unstoppable force and for this subject a seemingly insurmountable issue.

In the end in order to make a campaing work I think that we would have to have a very small map such as Ireland designed specifically for a four player game and divided into four equal areas, of say three provinces each, with varying and offsetting advantages. There would have to be a sixty second time limit for each strategic round and all battles are observable by all players whether or not they are participating in the combat. In order to make battles resolve quicker there should be an exponential increase in the morale factor as time goes on. In effect, if one side has steadily pushed the other back or made effective use of their cavalry in flanking then that army should dramatically increase in morale and the other side should become much more likely to rout. In order to preserve gameplay if a player drops or quits tha AI should take over any leaderless factions with a target difficulty to be chosen by the host before the campaign begins. Most importantly, I think that the goal should be for the campaign to last no more than ninety minutes as most people will be unable to devote more time than that.

I'm sure that the Developer's who drop in must marvel at how rationally we have solved all of the intangibles while explaining away the Everest like amount of coding such an effort would require. I remain convinced that the subject has been discussed by CA and when it becomes feasible they will deliver just such a product. Until then, this is all just my humble ramblings. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

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

[Jacque Schtrapp]

That's a fairly good explanation of the problem Jeebus. The smaller the campaign the more feasible it would be. So in addition to your suggestions I would expect to see a limited tech tree and less units avaialble ala the VI campaign. Cheers

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

[Devastatin Dave]

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

[Kraellin]

jeebus (and those agreeing with him),

read my post in that other thread. it explains a solution that doesnt require trimming down the map or any other unusual solutions. in fact, you could even increase map size and player numbers. no reason why you couldnt have 64 players coming and going in one campaign.

however, you do have to re-write the TW engine to accomdate my ideas, at least for a multiplayer campaign, but that could be done as an expansion pack and i'd gladly pay for it. heck, i might even pay on a pay-to-play basis monthly fee if they did it.

read the other post. i think my solutions are on page 3 or 4. you do have to change some of the premises the current game is based on, but it does work for multiplayer.

K.

[Jeebus_Frist]

Very interesting ideas Kraellin. I still have my qualms about how it play out. For example, what would happen to a game that all human players exited out of? If it were to continue to run indefnitely (or at least until the final campaign year) and no one ever rejoined, wouldn't it be eating up valuable resources wherever it is hosted? Should there be a minimum number of players required or should the game simply cease to exist once all humans have exited? What about a period of inactivity for a player controlled army? If I am playing at home and the phone rings and I become absorbed in my conversation to the neglect of the game, should the AI take over after a time? My biggest concern with a continuous time stream is potential lack of action. I have more thoughts that I will include at a later time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Your synopsis is concise and well presented to say the least. In order to implement what you are suggesting I think they would have to develop an entirely new game, based in part on MTW, STW, or RTW, and start fresh from a new beginning. In this, the day and age of MP, I should think such a game would be very well received.

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

[MILITARYMAN]

Quote[/b] (Hobot @ Sep. 30 2003,14:43)]What you say is true...so what about the observer idea? And your absolutely right, I think anything above a 4 player campaign would get rather time consuming. But with a small map, 2-4 player campaigns shouldn't be that crazy...
I agree m8
The campaign could be set up so when you join a campaign.
You go into a room for that campaign game.The same as now but only for the players of that game.This way multiple battles would take place at once.
And any players which are not in a campaign battle could play one another whilst waiting.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[MILITARYMAN]

Hail all warriors http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I have read some good points for and against an online campaign.Most bad points concern timeBut lets say we have a five minute limit for all players to make there strategie map moves yeh.
And then it switches to battle mode which is basically the same as the mtw foyer.Only this room is for players of that campaign only.
Players not in a campaign battle could play each other whilst waiting.And when everyone is ready to continue they click a ready button to go back to strategie mode?

[Kraellin]

jeebus,

i suppose you could do it any number of ways. if we go on the basis of someone is starting this thing, a player, then the options become, when he leaves the game ends, or, when he leaves it gets handed off to someone else as host, or, put in a save game function where the game is saved on the host's computer and he can restart it later.

if it's a dedicated server side thing, then it just keeps running all the time, like the old air warrior servers did it. if nobody is there, the AI goes to sleep till someone comes in. this is also very dependent on how you set up the rest of your parameters for the game. if it's an open ended thing with the ability to have 64, 128, 256, 512 or more players (and yes, that would be technically possible with handoffs), then it's almost a moot question. someone's gonna be in there even in the wee hours of the night, but if not, why it goes to sleep till someone comes back in.

frankly, until the word got out, you could host ALL the MP crowd on one server. very possible to do. one server running 24/7 would do it.

if you want to do it where anyone can host their own mpc, then you've got different rules and conditions that would have to exist. and i'm not going to bore everyone to tears with all the various possibilities. my main interest here has been to show that it CAN be done without all the tedium of waiting for battles in an online turn-based game. been there, done that, and out-slept rip van winkle, thank you very much.

the game would have to be partially re-done. no question. the good part is you dont have to touch the tactical side at all. that wouldnt need to change except for doing the handoffs and that's just network coding, not battle coding.

as for the campaign side coding, yes, that would need some work, which is why i say it would make an excellent expansion pack. you're not doing a completely new game. the basics already exist. but you do have to change some of the abilities of the player and what he can and cant do and some of the AI code and some interface stuff. it would take some effort. it's just not a two year, 40 man project with new graphics and sound. it's more an expansion pack type project in size and scope.

so, my turn, how would you do it?

K.

[Jeebus_Frist]

Kraellin

I like your idea very much. I'm not technically savvy enough to be able to dispute the possibilities of a perpetually running game that hibernates when there is no human player present. I suppose it would depend heavily upon the resources necessary to run a single campaign, the number of players participating in that campaign, and the number of campaigns required to accomodate the volume of players present on the server. My concern with large numbers of players in a single campaign is the perrenial online foe: lag. I play BF1942 online on occasion. Now BF1942 is definitely more of an eye candy resource hog, but I have never been able to stay connected to a game with 64 people for more than a few minutes as the lag simply overwhelms my dsl connection. Now in a TW style mpc I would imagine that the real-time strat map would flow fairly smoothely and that we wouldn't experience too much lag until we began having a dozen or more simultaneous battles. In order to avert just such an issue I would probably look to limit unit size in campaigns with 32-64 people to default and only allow the large unit size as an option for campaigns with smaller numbers of participants.

I especially like the idea of each player having their own profile that grows and reflects their actions within the game. There is real potential for the vices/virtues side of MTW in a scenario like this. Players who slaughter their prisoners would find themselves with nefarious vices and have to perform good deeds such as building a cathedral in order to rid themselves of their detrimental vice. In order to make ranks worth achieving I would like to see the requirements changed to make it much harder to move up through ranks 4-9. I would also imagine that should you lose numerous battles you would also find your rank decreasing over time and should your general die you would automatically lose one full rank.

First person shooters are among the most popular games online because they allow people to personally dominate the competition. This gives the narcissist in all of us the opportunity to excel online even if our true personal lives are a little stunted. Recently we have begun to see Blizzard developing games like Diablo II and Warcraft III that aren't simply successful because they have a neat story line. I fully believe that the incorporation of a player character gives each of us the chance to taste success or failure by giving a sense of self accomplishment. People want to rule the world and crush their foes. I feel an extremely important ingredient in the future of any successful online game is to give each player the personal opportunity to interact with the gaming environment through the actions of their own personal player/character.

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

[Kraellin]

jeebus,

again, it depends on how the thing is set up. if players are hosting the game, i'm with you, lag becomes extremely important and you'd have to set limits; mostly by the host and what he can handle with his connection and his machine.

however, if it's on a dedicated server, then it's entirely a different matter and lag isnt as important. the only lag you'd have to overcome is if you can play a 16 or 20 unit online tactical game like we do now in MP. with a dedicated server you simply hand off all the tactical battles to another server. the campaign itself wouldnt lag very much at all. there just isnt that much going on on the campaign map. sure, things are moving and so on, but it's relatively easy and doesnt require the massive additional resources that the tactical does. each player's machine is actually running the campaign map on their machine, so, all the server is doing is keeping track of where things are and sending the changes of data that occur. piece of cake (at least in theory :)

and yes, i agree with you about characterization. always more fun when you can keep advancing that level 5 king/general instead of having to start over again each time as a level 1. and the vices and virtues is also quite true. if i'm a mad pedophile and wish to soften that reputation a bit, i donate to the church, like you suggest. it doesnt remove my mad pedophile status, but it might get offset by something else a bit.

yeah, i'd love to see this thing done, but it's a hard sell to the dev guys. prolly 90% of their sales or better are from single player, or at least appear to be, so the MP folks in this game always have an uphill battle in anything mp related. this is no slam on the CA guys; it's just the reality of the situation. i do think this is going to change, little by little. mods, forums and fan sites like this one, the rather large outcry of the smallish mp community and direct communication with the developers and the continued growth of the internet are all having an impact on this game and gaming in general. there may come a time when you dont even buy your games from a retail store at all. you may just download them eventually and that puts even more emphasis on online activity. i think it'll eventually switch around.

K.

[MILITARYMAN]

Hail Kraellin and Jeebus_Frist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Man you two have had a serious discusion about this one.
And may i add you have both pointed out a lot of things i had not considerd.
I dont know how all the technical side would be worked out.But i have enjoyed reading your posts on the subject and i would like to add this.
Could they not add a simple online campaign for starters?
Max 8 players,1 player hosts the campaign,he sets times and dates for players to meet online and play.
And when everyone finishes for the night.The save data would be saved to all the players machines who are in the campaign.
This way it could stop any cheating because if all the players data didnt match the next time they meet.Then the odd one out would be visible to all and exposed as a cheat.
For instance:i host a campaign on a wednesday and sunday night at 8pm for me and a few freinds.My machine has to be powerfull enough to host the campaign(strategie map data,
all players forces,player resources etc etc).But at the end of the strategie map phase of the game.The players individual data is saved to his machine temporaliry.
Now whilst in battle mode(the foyer)the player will have a list of all the territorys he is attacking or defending.And after each battle the results are saved to the players machines temporaliry again.
This way when re entering strategie phase all the battle results are loaded up to the hosts machine.Which then checks with its own data from previous strategie mode save.And then calculates which territorys are lost,won or no change.And applies the changes to the strategie map.
So lets say a campaign map is forty territoys max big.
8 players start with 3 territorys each and 16 neutral ones.
During map phase you can move,attack,build,send messenger or assassin,chat to allies in realtime or check your resources etc.
You have a ready button which you press when you are ready to proceed to battle mode.No one knows except for yourself or your allies who is attacking who until you enter the battle foyer.
The battle foyer is where you fight your battles and is a room for that campaign only.It shows what battles are scheduled but also allows players who have no battles scheduled to play one another.Or even leave the room for a period of time?This room has a ready button also which you press to re enter strategie phase once you have finished your battles.
This method of play also allowes a regular save point for the campaign in case of drops.And if a player quits then all his territorys and armys become rebells allowing the game to continue.
So basically all the hosts machine would have to be capable of is controlling the data coming back and being enterd during strategie phase.The battle phase would be no different than now really.The individual players machines handeling the data and recording the battle log files.Then uploading them in next strategie phase for the hosts machine to do the maths.
Its not that difficult reallyExpecially when you consider the technical expertease at CA.
MILI *bows* then retires........good day my lords.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (Kraellin @ Oct. 02 2003,15:10)]yeah, i'd love to see this thing done, but it's a hard sell to the dev guys. prolly 90% of their sales or better are from single player, or at least appear to be, so the MP folks in this game always have an uphill battle in anything mp related. this is no slam on the CA guys; it's just the reality of the situation. i do think this is going to change, little by little. mods, forums and fan sites like this one, the rather large outcry of the smallish mp community and direct communication with the developers and the continued growth of the internet are all having an impact on this game and gaming in general. there may come a time when you dont even buy your games from a retail store at all. you may just download them eventually and that puts even more emphasis on online activity. i think it'll eventually switch around.

K.
Hmmmm....

It was my impression that most of the MPers aren't really interested in a Campaign and find micromanagement not to their taste. Prefering the simplicity of just the battles, much in the FPS sense. No resource gathering, no building, no macro-planning, just fighting

[MILITARYMAN]

Hail Toranaga sama http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I know what your saying m8,my idea would be a simple territory based one.EG:London=8k,Manchester=6k and so on. So you will receive the total amount of florins for all your owned territorys at the end of your strategie phase turn.And you can spend it at the start off your next strategie phase on troops or castle biulding.
Castles are the only buildings i would include to keep the resource management minimal.So basically the more territorys you own the more you can spend
Making it a combat oreintated campaign in which you must expand to survive.Virtually no micro management.

MILI *bows* then retires........good day my lords. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif