A question to everyone here....

[Generalisimo]

hello, maybe my question is very stupid but, just tell me why...
My question is:
WHY THE DEVELOPERS REMOVE THE MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGN? WILL THEY PUT IN IN AN ADD-ON? OR WAS JUST REMOVED....
i am asking this because i was very ocupied with my work the last year so i never had an oportunity to heard again of STW:MI. Yesterday i went to a GameStore and buy the game because of the fantastics reviews i have seen at the beggining of 2001 and at the end of 2000. But when i get home, i installed the game, i see the there is NO MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGN, WHY!!?!??!?!?!?!
I JUST WANT A MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGN TO PLAY OVER A LAN, NOT OVER THE INTERNET, BUT THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE EITHER....
SO, i will thank everyone who knows anything about this....
Please let me know if this is going to be put in a patch/add-on

[Catiline]

Discussed many times this one, it was never there in the first place, certainly won't be added now, and isn't going to be in MTW either. It seems to be incredibly hrd to make an MP campaign work.

------------------
Bis peccare in bello non licet

[Generalisimo]

why???
i think is very hard to make it work in INTERNET....
BUT OVER A LAN???? why????
you can save the game and return another day to finish it
i don't know why they didn't do this.
Even with Age of Empires, you can save your battle and return another day to play it again with the same enemies over a LAN (i don't know over the INTERNET).
Personally the only thing that i like about STW:MI was the multiplayer capability, now...mmm....
and you are telling me that MTW is not going to have it neither? well.....mmm.... the single player is excellent, but again no multiplayer...... and don't tell you have multiplayer!!! because these battles are nothing compare to a multiplayer campaign.
WELL, I HOPE THE DEVELOPERS RECONSIDER THIS AND MAKE A MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGN, at least for a LAN!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Generalisimo (edited 02-04-2002).]

[evilc]

give the guys a break, they're working on a new game now.

[Generalisimo]

i know that, that is why i am saying this... because i want this feature in the new game ar least!!!!

[Puzz3D]

You would think that a pbem campaign would be possible without too much trouble, with the battles resolved online. There is no need to be continuously online for the turn based part of the game. It would require that more information be passed from the host to the joiner or joiners at the beginning of each battle. The host would have to receive each clan's move by email, and, after all battles are resolved online, send a strategic campaign update email out to each clan. So, you need an import/export facility, and more info than is currently sent from the host to the joiner at the beginning of a battle. The turns would be truely simultaneous.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Agreed Puzz,

In fact, given the complexities of the battle multiplayer - its beyond me that they can't create a strategic MP aspect. Its really alot less data passed back and forth for each turn. Even battle outcomes would be easy to disperse to the various players/teams. Honestly, its not a matter of difficulty - its a matter of priority. The bean counters heard the rave reviews of how wonderful the battles and graphics and everything else were. All the reviews glossed over the strategic side of the game, and made it the afterthought. Now, the price is paid on where the focus of the "next step" is going to be.

For those who don't think that the battles pass alot of info - remember that each little man in every unit is accounted for - and the game has to insure that if you see a guy die or kill an opponent, the rest of the players do too. Which means that for a 2 on 2, alot of men are having to be synch'd. While the game does not have to insure that they are all making the same exact movements, it does have to have alot of same outcomes at the same time. That is alot of data - in constant flux. You can't tell me sending updated - static data every turn for resolution is more difficult than what is currently done for battles.

Sorry, maybe one day the bean counters will get steered here and find out that while we love the look and the tactical gameplay - we hunger for strategy as well. Until then - the focus will not be where we wish. Perhaps we should all write our favorite game magazines and point out this glaring - continuous flaw in the evolution of such a fine game. After all - thats what the mags are there for. As for giving the devs a hard time - sorry guys - they answer to the project lead - and he answers to the bean counters and marketing execs, etc. I bet that if they ALLOWED the choice, the devs would add the strat MP campaigns.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

[Puzz3D]

BSM_Skkzarg,

Actually, as longjohn2 said, the position of each man isn't sent over the network. The movements and combat of the individual men is calculated independently by each machine in the battle. Only the unit commands go back and forth. Checksums are periodically sent back to the host, and, if someone's game differs from the host's game, they go out of sync and are dropped. But, I agree that the online battle was the hard thing to do. I'm thankful there is a multiplayer mode. There are games released even today with no online multiplayer at all.

[Generalisimo]

i agree, the multiplayer battles are OK, and thanks to the developers for putting it.
But i will love to have a strategic map. Especially to play over a LAN.
I think that if you make the game work over a LAN, to make it work on the internet is just one step more....
And the LAN gives you the oportunity to save the progress and return another day...
I hope the developers hear this!!!!

[Erado San]

No matter how often this gets discussed here (and this is easily the 50st time, probably a lot more), fact remains that people simply won't understand the complexity of the Online or campaign.

The problem is not the amount of data sent across the net. The mechanics of setting up a connection and streaming the data are fairly standard, and the types of data sent wouldn't be the problem either. They could send pass on the structs of the campaign simply enough.

The real problem is twofold.

1 - Online presence

While they could probably do it, any turn based strategy game faces the problem that players deal play the game in turn. One player after another. Battles as a result of one players moves must be played before the next can take his turn. This means waiting, waiting and more waiting for the players not involved. Then make the players take their turns simultaneously, you'll say. Still players may not be involved in battle, so the problems remain (to a lesser extent perhaps). Added to that come the countless extra problems of deciding which player actions then precede the others. Player A attacks Bingo owned by player B. Player B however attacks Player A. Where is the battle? This is just one simple example. I could set up one with all players involved in a string of attacks where the problem becomes immense. And there are very many more similar problems.

2 - The number of players who want this

How many do you think there are? Shogun sold hundreds of thousands of copies. In here, the biggest site and forum of the online community we have 1629 registered members. In the foyer the most players I have ever seen was 140 I believe. How many people will play the campaign? 100? 200? 1000? Then YOU make a choice! Do you have half of your team work on an online campaign, time they cannot spend on improving the game itself (!) for 1000 people out of a few hundreds of thousands? Less than 1%? Or in other words, will you LOWER the wuality of the game because you want 1000 people to play that lesser game online? Do you want all those other prospected players to get a game of less quality because of those 1000? And then to know that, because of the big problems of being online, all players in a campaign have to be online at preset dates (how much trouble do we already have in getting online at a preset date for a tournament?). After maybe two months most campaign groups will have dispersed and maybe 200 are continuing.

I understand you want it. I would want it. But I could not keep the dates, simply of my way too busy life. So, please, CA, DON'T make the online campaing. Please have your crew work on perfecting this great prospect of a game and make it into the game we may have wanted Shogun to be.

If anything, put some options in the game that the community would need to make their own web based campaigns, with the option to play battles with broken units.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Hmmmm... Erado, I am stunned. I understand what your saying, but can't agree. As for the issue of "each player takes their turn in rotation", why? Set it up like MOO2 where each "player" or faction has an alloted time to move. Once done, you click the turn button. When time expires (or when all players have clicked the "turn" button), the game simultaneously applies all the movement. Now, the only issue I see here is what occurs is one human player must fight the AI in tactical mode, what does the other player do? Sit bored? Personally, I would allow them to fight the same battle as "practice" if they chose, or they could wait. Or, every turn, the game could save and allow for "offline" battle resolution for AI vs human battles. This would limit folks to a few turns a day after the campaign got started. The other option - auto-resolve the battles - not a good option, but one that could be used if needed.

As for how many people want the game - well, out of all the members that the .org has - have you ever seen one that said they DIDN'T want a campaign game? It may not be as important to some as it is to others, but I have yet to see someone say "No thats a lame idea, I don't want that!".

Finally, I agree - I would be happy if they would just give us a bit more flexibility in customizing battles so that we could create our own campaign games if its too much hassle for them.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Erado San]

To you it may seem easy, but it isn't. You say make the game process the turns simultaneously. I say that poses a whoke new set of problems. Player A attacks Player B who attacks Player C who attacks Player A. At the same time Player D attacks Player B. Try solve which battle goes first. And suppose Player A and D both defeat player B, who gets the province? No, don't bother, there are mumerous solutions and numerous problems to every solution, we'd be talking all day about this one example alone.

You say ALL THE ORG MEMBERS. I say Wow, all 1629 of them? That is about the entire online potential community. If they sold 162.900 copies that is exactly ONE percent of all the potential buyers. Try find one company that allows half of their staff to work for 1% of their customers and the other half for the other 99%. And then after the game is released, at least half of the 1629 quits their campaign within a month because of the dificulties with it. And they need all their staff to make this a great game. Now do you want a great game without online campaign or a mediocre one with an online campaign that only 1000 people might play?

[Puzz3D]

EradoSan,

It doesn't matter who attacks who in a turn. Let all the players make their moves, and then resolve whatever battles exist. If A attacks B in Musashi, B attacks C Sagami, C attacks A in Kai and D attacks B in Musashi, you just play out these battles online. One battle is A + D vs B in Masashi. Another is B vs C in Sagami. The third is C vs A in Kai. The results of these battles is sent to the host to create the starting position for the next turn. No one is sitting online waiting because the turn based part is played offline. The players who have to battle are notified, and arrange a time to meet online.

STW didn't take off as an online game, but not having a multiplayer campaign must have contributed to that. If all that matters is the number sold, then why bother with online play at all. It only increased sales by 1% or less. We got a poorer single player because of the resources it took to include the multiplayer. Maybe it was a marketing error to include the multiplayer. And, just because only 1% who bought it are online doesn't mean the other 99% are actually playing the single player game. It could very well be that only a small percentage of the people who bought the game actually play it. I have 30 games purchased in the last 2 years that are unopened.

The STW box gave the definite impression that online multiplayer campaign was included, and, in general, you can't return software after you have opened it and found it to be less that you expected. I'm not surprised the issue keeps coming up.

[Generalisimo]

people....people.... if you just READ!!!!
i am not talking about making a CAMPAIGN ONLINE!!! i am talking about a CAMPAIGN ON A LAN!!!!
it is more easy to do that, if this works really great, then you can move a step forward and "try" do make also the "MP ONLINE CAMPAIGN". But first you can make the "MP LAN CAMPAIGN" to test some things, because if you play on a LAN, it is sure that you are in the same building, the PC are "near", and you have actually time to loose waiting the other movements (or simultaneously, the devs decides...). When time runout (for example after 12 hour of playing the campaign with your friends), you save the game, and go home.
The other day the same people get togheter in the same place again and continue the game. Just LOAD the game and that's all. It is not so dificult.
When you make this, and all works great, you can go further and make MP CAMPAIGN ONLINE.

[Generalisimo]

sorry i forgot...
like Puzz3D said, the devs (in the box and reviews) told that "aparently" the game has multiplayer campaign capabilities .... but when you buy it you realize that it hasn't.
Personally i only buy STW:MI for the multiplayer capability, when i realize that it hasn't that capability i get very very angry.... but... what can i do?....

[Erado San]

Puzz, think again. A attacks B, B attacks C, C attacks A. A only has one army in that province. That is used to attack B. So, can A defend against C? Then people say that is cool, because then A can't even defend, so C can simply take the province. Wrong. Who decides which attack battle is fought first?

Like I said, this creates immense problems.

Generalissimo, fine that you talk about a campaign for LAN. How many people have LAN? Or did you not read the parts in my post in which I question why half of their team should work for just a very very very small part of their customers? You think it is easy. Sadly, it is not.

People, IF it would be so easy, then OF COURSE they would do it. They're not daft.

This was my final post on the matter by the way. People will keep on saying how easy it is and they should do it. I just know it is not easy and if I were in their shoes I'd probably agree with their decision.

[Generalisimo]

ok Erado San, that's your point and i respect that.
I am not saying that making MP LAN CAMPAIGN is soooo easy, but it is more easy than doing the MP CAMPAIGN ONLINE i think.

And about the battles, as i remember, in STW more than one faction can attack the same province, and all the action goes togheter at the end of the season.
for example, A is in province XXX, B decide to attack A in his turn, the attack is anounce, nothing more, C, taking advantage of the situation decide to attack A province XXX with his army. At the end of the season there are 3 armies at XXX, 1 from A, 1 from B and 1 from C, they will fight (A as the defender, B and C as the agressors). The remaining army is the victorious one.
This happened to me sometimes in STW (playing a solo campaign).
If you are C, you can choose to help B attacking A, and then retreat to your province; or help B attacking A and then attack B to gain the XXX.
This is implemented in the SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN, so i don't see any dificult in doing the same for the MP LAN CAMPAIGN.

[Puzz3D]

EradoSan,

First of all you don't have to attack with everything you have. A could leave some units behind for defense. That's a strategic decision. Second, the moves are simultaneous and all battles are actually fought at the same time. A's army has already left to fight B when C's army arrives. Seems logical to me.

Generalisimo,

I think LAN and Internet amount to the same thing. The fact is, the multiplayer campaign was not designed in from the beginning. It was left for the end of the project to be done if they had time, and they didn't have time.

[evilc]

would take far to long to implement.

[Erado San]

Puzz,

again the solution poses another problem and that is what I mean. Split forces. Part 1 from Player A attacks Player B. Part 2 defends against Player C. Part 1 loses and must retreat. Part 2 loses and technically the province is lost. Hardly a fair situation, but one everybody could live with I think.

Generalissimo,

Your example is an easy one. That is something that happens often enough and will not be a problem. It's the complex ones that are the problem.

But people, it is fine for us to keep discussing this, but for every solution you present I will pose another problem. I have thought about all of this some months ago, as some of you will remember. There are solutions by the way, but they are hard.

What you all simply keep ignoring so far is the amount of players wanting this. Which is still a big argument against the whole thing, even if all the technicalities are solved. And that makes no difference for either LAN or ONLINE campaign. True General, for a LAN version the player availability won't be a problem for the game. But they simply won't make it for a handful of people.

[This message has been edited by Erado San (edited 02-05-2002).]

[BSM_Skkzarg]

A handful of ppl. Hmm.. seems we have a handful right now asking for it! And thats out of the limited number of folks in the org.

As for the mechanics of HOW - such as if team A attacks team B and team C attacks team A, those are actually quite easy to deal with. In fact, the BSM worked this type of problem out (with much more complexity in the movements) about 2 yrs ago for the BSM Galactic Domination Map game. If CA (officially) or a couple of the developers want to spend some unofficial time on it, I would be more than happy to write up the basic ruleset and turn flow pattern.

As for the question of LAN vs Internet play, well - adding it in for LAN only does not make sense. I have a LAN here at home, but overall most people do not. And I know that no one is going to try and play M:TW at work! ROFL! If your going to do a campaign, it needs to be "saveable" and internet (WAN) capable.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Kraellin]

wow. this is like a nasty monster that when you chop off one leg it grows another two :)

k. there's 2 ways to do a full multiplayer online campaign and both would work. i'd explain them, but the point here seems to not be IF it could be done, but rather the viability from the dev viewpoint of whether to do it. do we devote X amount of resources to this and get X amount of beans back for it.

frankly, i'm not sure if i'm a dev guy that i'm going to put that many beans into it. strat games are, quite noticably, the low end of the market. when it takes 2 years to develop a game and i can put my beans into a game that will sell 1 million units or i can put my beans into a game that will sell 100,000 units, guess what. that's a no-brainer. and what if i cant even sell that 100,000 units; am i going to have enough beans left over to spend the next two years on the next project?

sorry, but that IS the reality of it. strat games traditionally sell, AT BEST, about half as well as shooters and rpgs. and most dont sell 'at best'. and remember that you also have other costs besides just paying your dev guys. there's marketing, distribution, taxes, etc, etc. two years is LONG time to go without income.

now, if your point is HOW to make a multiplayer campaign, we can discuss that separately. like i said, i know of 2 ways to do the FULL thing online. and there are compacted or shorter versions one could do also. and frankly, i hate pbem (play by email). i just dont play those.

it also doesnt matter whether it's lan or fully online; the problems are essentially the same, both in economics and timing. and those that accuse the dev guys or 'execs' of being bean counters...yer damn right they are! and i'm damn glad they are. i want CA to survive and that means economically also. PR wise they've had to learn some lessons, and from the promo and messages i've seen lately, they've learned this lesson.

now, if you really want an online campaign right now, do one. it can be done. magy is/was doing one and i believe it is/was quite successful. join up. there's no reason you cant fake one, except that maybe yer waiting for someone else to do the work for it. if i really wanted one that badly, i could grab yuuki or tosa or someone willing to play and we could rig one up and wouldnt even need a web site to do it on. when it came time for tactical battles we'd just meet online and fight it out.

now, as for doing a full blown online multiplayer campaign integrated into the game, yes, it can be done. but, you'd need to alter the game engine a fair amount. you'd have to add the ability to save games and put the strat map into the multi part of the game. the best way to do it would be that all players must be online, all connected to the game at the same time. the biggest drawback is going to be waiting. i can easily see one 'tactical' turn taking hours to complete because of the complexities or multiple armies, withdrawing, queued battles and so on. 1 complete turn could take hours to completely resolve. and in all that time a given player may not be involved in any of it and may just have to sit there. and to me, that's the biggest problem, not the complexity of making the thing. remember, you might have 60 armies on the map at one time, 8 players holding x number of provinces with x number of armies in any given province, plus shinobi, ninja, and geishas. the rules of moving, building and so on are actually the easy part of this. the hard part is when there ISNT any conflict for which you have to take part. that's the hard part, sitting there and waiting for the season before you can do anything.

now, all of that is postulating one season, 8 players, full map of japan, play very similar to the current single player campaign and so on. like i said, you could do abbreviated versions. yuuki's pbem would work. other forms would work as well. i believe the last time this thread came up i posted a pretty simplistic version of what could be done and that was based on a long discussion i had with tosa about this. we hashed out a system that wouldnt be too hard to implement and it seemed, in theory, pretty workable, at least from a player's perspective. from a dev perspective, i'm not sure and so we're right back to the initial question, could the dev guys do it and make it pay. could they even do an experimental version, an abbreviated version to start with and make it pay. well, apparently, so far, they dont think so, even with all the, hmmm, what's the right word here, 'persuasion' the player community put on their doorstep.

now, to make it pay, they could put out a separate add-on cd for the game as it stands now, stw/we/mi. would you buy it? what would it have to be like for you to purchase such a product? would you want more than one way to play an online campaign or would you be satisfied with whatever they did? what shld it cost, full price, 3/4 price, 1/2 price or something else? would you be willing to have M:TW pushed back in development to see this happen or would you be willing to wait until after M:TW is out, patched, and has it's own add-on? remember, CA is pretty much one small team. (i think) they dont have 6 projects all going at one time with 6 different teams. so ya have to think in realities here, not fantasy. what could they actually do, not what do we individually want them to do.

and erado, just a note here; this is going to come up again in the future. bet on it ;)

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

In real life, those 3 armies could meet/meat each other on 1 battlefield. In STW and WE/MI each province is represented by 1 field and fight at the same time.

A general and even more a player wants to decide where to battle, but a general can not always decide! So the computer should make a choice where in those 3 provinces the armies meet.

The other possibility is indeed that they don't meet and find either an empty province or a small garison: take the fief or fight the garison.

I can agree with the argument don't make something that only a part of 1% of the customers will use.

The current Historical Campaigns have triggers (simple scripting) and allow broken troopnumbers (predefined armies).

If the scripting gets extended, SP will benefit from that too. But scenarios can also be cooperatively or vs each other played online. "Just" like a directory with maps, you would have a directory with online scenarios (also possible to make custom ones). Before playing, the files should be verified to prevent cheats/crashes.

This isn't the same as an online or LAN Campaign, but it's something that can be small enough to play in one session.

And with some extra code we could have tools to make online campaigns.

With cumbersome administration, online scenarios would already allow the assembly of a campaign: make a scenario using broken units, general honor etc for a battle, do the strategic moves webbased. Clever programmers could make tools to speed up/automate the process.




------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Erado San]

Responding to some of the points made here...

PBEM can be done, and in a way that's what Magy's campaign is, although they make very good use of forums. Any group of people can set up their own rules and have a ball. For that reason I want CA to include the options to be able to host any battle online that you can also get in SP. That will give every group of players that is going to do this what they need.

Fully programmed MPC versions are a lot more difficult. To keep it simple they could be written aas a web based application, which you could also run in a LAN of course. But so far we have only discussed the movement of the troops and the trouble that causes to the Attack sequence.

There is a lot more to take into account for a full blown version. Think about the results of a battle. They must be fed back into the game. For that we have the logfiles of course, but in them the stats are specified per trooper. Adding and then dividing should give the average new honour, but what will happen to the fractions? We can't put them into a battle at this moment.

Think of assassination and bribery attempts. Again the order is important. Suppose two players try to bribe the same victim with the same amount of money.

We don't know formulas for calculating popularity levels, which are an important factor for calculating tax revenue.

Of course we'd have to forget about rebellions, as we can't have AI controlled fctions online.

I can go on all night, but I won't. Most of you know I have made some attempts to do a full blown web based campaign. I discarded the ideas at one stage because of the complexities. The moment I decided to dismiss them was when I had reached the 5th A4 size sheet of major problems. Good moment to call it a day.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Erado,

Your right, this isnt a simple thing to do. Even web based, there are alot of complexities ppl dont consider. As I have said, the BSM did almost the same exact thing web based for a KA war and it developed over months of discussion. In the end, we had a workable ruleset that took into account every known or encountered situation. But it took alot of time to get there. No this would not be an easy thing to do, but since it has been promised since S:TW patches were announced - its time that they followed through. Especially when it makes business sense.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Papewaio]

Either
Lucky Dip Scenario:
Have the order of battles be randomly generated. Timing is so often a matter of luck... look at the Battle of Midway, finally found the Jap fleet when practically the entire air power where refueling.

Or
Luck General Scenario:
Higher rank generals move later if there province is under attack. Equal rank generals random order.
etc

As for the timing it is simply a matter of giving a prealloted amount of time for everyone to move. IMHO I think it should be based on the seasonal timing make it more of a rush to move during winter (takes into account messengers being slower and men less motivated) and longer during summer just like it is for the battles. You can hit finish and then once everyone runs out of time or hit finishes you can watch the strat map cycle through.

Battles are done in their alloted order.
When consectutive battles whose results are not codependent occur and have separate combatants they can be run at the same time.
If you have a spy in a province or an ally is fighting you can watch the battle... could be even a small bonus that an ally may be assigned a unit or two to control (to keep boredom levels down and cooperation up).
The game would rock!

The technical difficulty is pretty low after comparing with the brillance of a morale system, paper-sissor-rocks, honour etc they have made such a good product that fails on the follow through to MP it is half baked.

For me its not the difficulty of arranging the battles as the Strategic side of things is nicely separated from the Tactical.

I am one of those who would have played online if there was a strategic side. Since there is not I play deathmatch rpgs or Diablo II as they follow through with what they are which are just battles.

Shoggies greatest downfall is that as it is a strategy/tactics game which can only be played without the strategy in MP. The battles are fun. But when playing SP and you know that tiny force if it can hold the bridge as the timer runs out in the snow means your Daimyo with reinforcements can make it next turn add a reason and adrama to fight or run. Camping would become a legit tactic, with the probable consequences that campers over the length of a campaign may do well but would doubtfully win (you can't win SP without shaking that a*se).

Just look at how well games do that are fully MP. Making a game fully MP is what sells more then SP.

EDIT:
There is no way in hell I am going to buy another STW clone (Mongols) until they bring the strategy to MP. Till then I'm looking at MMORPGs.

------------------
Never start a land war in Asia
Never bet with a Sicilian when death is on the line
Never expect anything more then sarcasm from an Australian

[This message has been edited by Papewaio (edited 02-06-2002).]

[evilc]

if 2 people are playing an online campaign, but one gets wiped out quickly, will the other carry on???
also, after playing an hour battle with 3 humans and renforcements streaming on the map, and suddenly someone drops, internet time is up, drops out of sync, computer crashes etc. who annoyed would you be? Unreliability is a problem over the internet so even though i would love a online campaign, it simply would annoy me more than enjoy me.

No company is going to spend resources on a LAN campaign when not many people play it online, let alone in LAN's.

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

ADF files allow fractions of units, and about every other unitproperty: honor, honor of leader, armor and weaponupgrades, fatiguelevel, meleemode and positions (so no need to use deployment zones).

STW WE/MI has the option to make scenarios (Historical Campaigns). Here's a short explanation what that is/can do. First I'll explain the Historical Battles (a scenario is a linkage of Historical Battles).

A Historical Battle consists of 2 types of files: Army Description Files and Battle Description Files. Each ADF file describes one army that 'plays' in the battle. For example Takeda.ADF. As said this file contains information about units, here's an example of unitdata stored in an ADF.

UnitStart::"Unit1"

InitialLeaderName::"Shingen Takeda"
IsGeneral::true
Position:: 18000 32000
Direction::180
GeneralRank::3
LeaderHonour::3
UnitMon::1
TroopType::hcavalry
TroopNum::4
TroopHonour::4
Columns::3
CurveRadius::1
FormationType::FORMATION_CLOSE
MeleeMode::ENGAGE_AT_WILL
FatigueLevel::FRESH
HoldPosition::true
GeneralIsDaimyo::true
ArmourLevel::1
WeaponLevel::1
UnitEnd::

This unit has 4 Hcavs, honor 4, weapon 1, armor1, is the armygeneral is also the daimyo (!) and has leaderhonor 3 (every 2 leaderhonor boosts any unit honor by 1, rings a bell already?).

Any unit can have 1-120 men!
An ADF file can contain 16 units, so it's just like buying 16 units in a custom or online battle. But an ADF can also list unit 17, 18, 19, 20 etc: reinforcements! The precedence of listing in the ADF determines the sequence of entering the field (so this is not random!).

The BDF files, tells which map should be used, the season, and the weather. But it also tells which ADF files are used which clan/color they are and to which alliance they belong. It is possible to make 4 teams of 2, all enemies of each other, but also a 8 players FFA!

BDF files also have some simple scripting (Triggers). Useful in Historical Battles, but very important in Scenarios.

Historical Campaigns/scenarios are just a collection of Historical Battles, some extra files/extra information in BDF is used to link them.

Like was mentioned in other threads, a full online Campaign is something for the Die Hards. Many online players won't have the time to play it.

Online scenarios can be played within one session of 1-3 hours, and would offer an alternative to the current battles. Virtually anything is possible: custom placement of units (Large maps can finally be used!), fractioned units, reinforcements, FFA, AI controlled units. A scenario could consists of 1 battle, but it could also be a combination of any numbers of battles: simple linear or branched (the outcome of 1 battle decides where and how the next will be).

ADF and BDF files are essentially normal textfiles, so it's accessible to anyone to make a scenario (like custom maps we could make custom scenarios). A CRC check before the players play a battle will prevent crashes due to filemismatch.

The online BDF file could have data like this:

Player::"Mitsuhide" 0 0 ONLINE "Mitsuhide" 0 false 21100 31939 0

Player::"Ikki" 1 0 ONLINE "Ikki" 0 true 21548 11874 0

Player::"Iga Ninja" 2 2 ARTIFICIAL "Iga ninja" 0 true 21548 11874 0

Player::"Kikkawa" 3 2 ONLINE "Kik" 0 true 21548 11874 0

This is a scenario for 3 human players, there are 2 alliances (0 & 2) and 1 AI controlled army (Iga Ninja).

Players could choose a color/army 0, 1 or 3.

I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that with some modifications the current HB and HC can be 'ported' to online play.

When this is available, Full online Campaigns are also possible (may maybe some extra code should be enabled/modified).

Here's the basic idea. A webbased server handles the strategic part of the game (details about this can be discussed later, but lets assume that participants can make strategic moves (1 turn!) during the 5 workdays of a week, the server updates all the strategic information at once friday 23.00 gmt (so players can't see each others moves).

When 2 enemy armies meet each other, the server/administrator of the server generetes a scenario that describes that one specific conflict and send the required adf and bdf files to the players. Both copy those files to the custom online scenario folder and have the week-end to battle it out on the battleserver. The battleserver sends back the logfile of the outcome (I would prefer that the BDF file contains a line like this: Strategic Server Url::http:://www.MTWStrat.com logfiles should be automatically send to the stratserver). The stratserver/webmaster processes the logfile (survivors, gained honor, win/loss). Monday 7 gmt the stratserver will be updated and the next strategic moves can be made. Personal password activation by both players of the scenario would prevent that 1 player plays the battle with a 'friend' instead of the opponent (cheat).

It looks like the current SP campaign already uses a similair, if not the same mechanism. Check the folder logfiles: you'll find logfiles for Campaigns, with data for every unit that participated in it. A man in a unit has individual stats (it can have honor 2 while the average unit is 1! :-). This data is used to update the situation on the strategic map after a battle!

The other thing is also true: the strategic map sends data to the battlemode about used units, fractioned units etc (this file can't be found on the harddisk, but it could be generated). The same idea as ADF/BDF files, it wouldn't suprise me if a Campaign battle uses the exact same mechanism/files (internal?) as a Historical Battle.

And it really wouldn't surprise me if online battles actually use ADF and BDF files too.

As said before, the sequence of listing of units in the ADF files decides the sequence of entering the battlefield, thus instead of not knowing when which unit will enter the field, the user could decide this. I feel YC is more useful in the end of a battle, Nags would be good in the start. This decision could be made in both offline and single campaigns.

Please CA, open the options to make and use online Scenarios (this will also allow Online Campaigns). It seems to me that the same mechanism of ADF, BDF and log files can be (are) used for all battles.

BTW, the generating of ADF and BDF files would allow to save the starting setup of a SP campaign battle: all to often I had to press escape and lose the battle because real life didn't allow me more time to finish it. Now SP users can decide to play the battle later (it would also require that the stratmapdata gets saved).

------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Generalisimo]

As i said before, i will love to play a MP Campaign. And i think a lot of people will love it too.
I know it is not easy, but let's look at the numbers? the most populars games are the one that you can play MP, why? because the PC cannot compare to a human enemy.
For example, i will love to play a MP Campaign against my two brothers and the rest of the Clans controled by the computer like an SP Campaign. This will be a very good option for a LAN Campaign , that will be dificult to implement in a MP Online Campaign.
Maybe you are right, not everyone has a LAN in their house, but here in Argentina (we are not the biggest and richest country in the world as you can see if you see some CNN...) there are "CyberCafes", where you go to play Masive Multiplayer Games , like CounterStrike, Age of Empires, Diablo 2, and a lot more. You could go there with your friends, play the game, save the game to a ZIP, and return the next day to continue playing. That's a simple solution to a MP LAN Campaign.
And now don't tell, if you have the option of playing this excellent game in a MP enviroment against you friends, you will not do it? I AM SURE YOU WILL, and EVERYONE WILL.
This game will be the first one that give you this oportunity.
There will be more to solution if you think for a MP ONLINE Campaign.
So, i think it is not imposible, you have to think very carefull what is good for the game, and i think MP Campaign will give a bigger audience to this game.

[This message has been edited by Generalisimo (edited 02-06-2002).]

[Kraellin]

target, longjohn2, graham, michael, you all following this? it would seem there is still some desire for an online strat portion of the game. perhaps after M:TW is released this topic could be revisited by CA. yes, no?

there are many, many ways a strat game could be done, and even some that you could combine the tactical portion with the strat portion. i, for one, would enjoy seeing both, or even a variety of possibilities.

one of our clever programmers here in the forums could possibly already do a java based web thing with nothing more than the strat portion. would be fun just doing that much of it. shogun chess, so to speak. all battles auto-resolved.

tosa also has some nice ideas. myself, i'd prefer something a little faster than entering my moves once a week and then resolving battles on the weekend. but i believe his options would also allow for shorter real time strat options.

erado, the timing thing might not be as difficult as it seems. if, for example, the game were played on a dedicated server for the strat portion of the game and battles are resolved in the normal way, the simplest solution for timing is, whoever clicks on things first in the strat portion, that then determines what battles take place first. for example, if you have player A, B, and C in their respective provinces and all 3 of those provinces adjoin one to the other and each of them makes a move to attack one of the others, you simply keep a 'stack' of who made their moves first on the strat map. moves on the strap map get entered into the stack in the order in which the players make them. thus, if A attacks B and he makes this move on the strat map first, before B can attack C, then that move will be processed first when the time comes to resolve battles. now, if B is also intending to attack C, but he entered his move on the strat map AFTER A did, then you'd have to allow for several things. if A attacks B, and B loses, B must be allowed to change his attack move on C. he might have lost badly to A and hasnt the strength to do it now. even if he won against A he may not now want to attack C.

it's a matter of stretching time and taking things one by one and allowing for changes as events play out. your bribe example is interesting also. do you let the player BE the general being bribed and handle it himself, or is this kept secret from the player. and if two bribes are offered to the same general, again, this would be handled by the stack; first in, first out.

and i think someone else touched on this aspect, travel time. in the old shogun game on the Amiga there were pre-set routes you used to move your armies around on the map. these were essentially the roads that did or might have existed in old japan. all armies traveled by these routes and it took X amount of time to move from here to there. this was often quite frustrating as a leader, because you'd commit an army down one path but the enemy would take a different path and you'd not meet. he'd end up taking a city on the north whereas you'd sent your armies to the south. this is almost completely missing in the current shogun games and i think it might be a good thing to add in.

and that brings us back to the ports. did any japanese general or leader EVER, historically, invade one japanese port from another japanese port? surely it's easy enough to move a single ninja or shinobi or geisha by ship, but moving an entire army by ship in those days would have been an expensive and daunting task, particularly on a relatively small island where it would have been much more viable to simply walk. i know we've hashed this over several times about making sea moves take more than 1 turn and it's not my intention here to open that all up again. my suggestion is to remove the ability completely, except for shinobi, geisha, and ninja, or add in the necessity of building actual ships and having to spend koku on it and time in building.

the TW series condenses a number of things. this is part of the reason doing an online strat game is somewhat difficult. you currently move instantaneously province to province and port to port. it also condenses time. 1 move equals one season. if you stretch time back out it gets easier to deal with strat moves and the interactions necessary for an online campaign. and for those arguing that M:TW shld have an online campaign, guess what, time is condensed even more, if my understanding of it is correct. and since they've already stated that the game is already essentially done, i wouldnt count on seeing an online campaign in M:TW.

still, i like this discussion. we can always dream.

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[Generalisimo]

good post Kraellin.
i totally agree with you.
I hope the devs make an addon or a patch to include MP CAMPAIGN

[shingenmitch2]

I think a lot of people would like to see a campaign. Like stated earlier, not everyone clammours for it, but I have yet to hear someone say they not want it.
---------------------
As for the "Multiple armies attacking each other." It is ALREADY SOLVED -- happens all the time in Single play vs. 7 AI daimyos. Sometimes your army is "premempted" and doesn't get attack.
Same could apply in Multi Camp. Just handle it the same way as it is resolved in the single play.

OR It could be purely random as to who attacks and who gets stuck, OR it could go by General HONOR -- higher generals get their commands respected first. -- many ways to resolve that issue.

[Magyar Khan]

or as in the boardgame

spent koku to get the initiatitive next round

[Puzz3D]

EradoSan,

The way it works now in the SPC you do loose the attacking army if you loose the attack, and the province it came from is lost in a subsequent battle on the same turn. This is provided that there is no other province to retreat into. It's as though the battles were fought simultaneously even though you fought them one after another. This means the host machine has to maintain an intermediate state for the strategy map until all battles on that turn are completed.

I suggested PBEM for the strategic part of the game to save people time while online playing the battles. I was thinking there would be 7 people playing the strategic game, and they could command the online battles or recruit other players to play the battles for them. If people want to play the strategic part of the game online, then I only see that as viable using auto resolve for the battles.

[Erado San]

Kraellin,

I thought about having the player who clicks first have the first move. Is an option, but stretches the turns unnecessarily. COuld be done though.

ShingenMitch,

No it is not. That is the result of the Player and the AI taking their turns AFTER another, and everybody more or less agrees that that would be hell to play.

Magyar,

Probably the best playable option, but not very realistic. Gameplay before realism though, so I like it. But how to treat peoplewho, like in the boardgame, don't spend money or spend equal amounts?

Puzz,

You are right, that is the way it is in the game now. Totally acceptable therefore, but in an MPC I expect this to be more of an issue than in SP.

[Generalisimo]

so, Erado San, as you can see there are a lot of options to make the MP Campaign. I don't think any of these options are truly imposible to develop, they just take some time, but i think that you can only do some "tuning" of the SP Campaign, and you will have a great MP Campaign.
I hope the developers read all this theads.

[Erado San]

General,

want me to start about maybe 30, 40 problems I can think of off the top off my head?

ok, just one. Pretend i'm a CA project manager just one minute, ok...

Hmmm... MPC... Mmmm... 6 months to go before MTW launch... Work to be done for the game... Enough for 8 months... Staff needed for MPC... lessee, 2-3 full time proggers, our network progger fulltime, 30% time of all QA people, me 30% of my time... Then integrating and further testing... prospected setback of MTW for MPC alone... 4-6 months... Then number of prospect customers who want to play it for one month = 1%... prospect customers who'll play it longer

[shingenmitch2]

Erado

I think we all get the point and it makes perfect sense. That being said, it still sucks that there is no campaign http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Nelson]

Well, it would seem some people still DON'T get the point about a Total War multiplayer campaign. Otherwise this dead horse would be left alone. Folks new to the forum can be expected to rehash the issue. But we have old hands around here who STILL say things like "Think about solutions not problems" or "It would be easy if... ". It's ultimatly not about solutions or problems. It's about the relationship between the resources and the audience. If CA expected to sell another 100,000 units by including an MPC, however clumsy it would have to be, we would have one.

Nonetheless it does suck that there is no MPC.