A multiplayer campaign.

[Manstein]

This thread is not to ask whether or not a multiplayer campaign will added this time, but rather to ask why everyone actually wants a multiplayer campaign. I just don't get why people would want one. Sure, it'll add an entirely new dimension into the game, and gets rid of shoddy AI and other issues that pop up when playing with the computer.

Firstly, if an MP campaign is even to be implemented, due to the depth of most of the Total War games, it'll have to incredibly simplified to cut down on time issues and such. Such simplification takes away what the Total War series were all about and makes the entire game a simple, one dimensional game. For instance, one can take away almost of the diplomacy, (only relegating diplomacy to alliances, neutrality and state-of-war sort of options.) Also, the turn system will have to removed to remove a time constraint, thus turning the game into a possible clickfest in an attempt to build up armies and cities. This takes away the slow pacing often seen in Total War games. I can elaborate further, but we all get the idea.

A multiplayer campaign, if ever to be implemented, will be dumbed down so much that it isn't even Total War anymore. It'll probably simply resemble something like Risk, a game that can be played online effectively, and is indeed quite a fun wargame, but Risk only covers world domination compared to Total War.

If CA can think of a wonderful way to implement a fun online campaign game in the next Total War game without "dumbing it down", I'll be much less pessimistic about the prospect of such.

[ShadesWolf]

The implementation of a multi player concept would be hard - accepted.

But the idea is what most people want. For online battles to actually mean somethink. For a ruler or general to have to fight a battle with what units he has and not what money he has been allocated to build his best army.

The idea of having a map, and placing your defending army on a hill that cannot be passed and then making the invading army attack you.

Being able to invade enemy lands and capture the lands resources.

This is what most people think about when they talk about multiplayer campaigns.

A team of 4 or 5 people (or a clan) playing every Friday etc for a set number of turns against another clan or clans..... To capture territory etc....

[Mooks]

err no it wont? Do like what empire earth did, give the ability to save the game. Then when your with your buddy(s) all you have to do it load it back up... You may think its dumb, but facing a retarded computer over and over again is dumb also.

I can beat the comp in RTW half asleep, with a fever, and with broken hands.

[Avicenna]

If you have just one tedious micromanager who also happens to fight out every battle with his 56k connection and primitive graphics card which often causes his armies to suddenly stop because his screen suddenly stops showing him information.. the whole campaign can collapse.

[drone]

I would like a multiplayer campaign. Not going to happen, but I can hope, can't I?

The campaign map from Rome would not work very well, since the player could move, fight, then move armies again all before ending the turn. The map would have to work like Medieval, with all moves planned, then actually occurring during the end turn phase.

Combat would need to be pause-free (even with player v AI matches). The combat phase would be the most troublesome, since it would take the longest to do and the non-involved players would need to be entertained somehow while it goes on (maybe spectator cameras, hell, maybe allow them control of the AI units). If possible, the game should handle multiple battles at a time to speed this up, as long as there wasn't a common player.

TBS games work with multiplayer. Games like MoO2 and 3 and BotF worked fairly well, the only difference would be the possibly epic combat phases which these other games didn't really have.

Regarding connection speed, you could always play with friends on a LAN. It's better that way anyway, you can rag on the slow players and trashtalk during fights. But this is probably too much of a niche market.

[Zawath]

1vs1 or 2vs2 multiplayer campaign shouldn't be too hard to make. Just create a smaller campaign map, add the option to remove AI factions and there you go. Lots of intense action for couple players and definately more interesting than basic multiplayer battles.

[Mooks]

A smaller campaign map would work. Just downsize it too spain or italy and there you go.

[Manstein]

Yes, we can continue to hope, but I just see the prospect of it a little impractical to even continue dreaming about. Medieval 2 isn't going to ship with an online campaign, so we might have to continue to monitor the development of future Total War games.

I believe that simply auto-resolving battles might solve the time issue there, and making the map much smaller might help as well. The turn system can always be imposed with a time limit, and on much smaller maps, one will not need so much time to do things. Also, the prospect of being able to build buildings, troops and structures immediately might alleviate the time problem also. As mentioned above, one can always save the game online like in the original Empire Earth and rejoin later.

The result of this "simplification" for an online campaign makes a Total War game not Total War anymore. In fact, it looks more like a slightly expanded version of Risk.

[Wishazu]

You simply cant auto resolve the battles in any kind of mp campaign if you want people to actually play it. As someone has already said players want more than anything for their battles to actually mean something, and to be fought against another human opponent.

[Manstein]

You simply cant auto resolve the battles in any kind of mp campaign if you want people to actually play it. As someone has already said players want more than anything for their battles to actually mean something, and to be fought against another human opponent.

I know. How about players "transfer" their prime armies from the campaign map to fight online against another player who has also chosen his prime army from the campaign map and be able to give these armies names or something? That might provide a bit more feeling of achievement and such to the battles.

[Gregoshi]

Perhaps both armies have to exceed a certain number of men before the players can fight the battles. Otherwise, small armies or lopsided battles are just auto-resolved. I like the idea of naming your armies Manstein. :thumbsup:

As for the feasability of a MP campaign, a save feature is a must. Also, I think the social dynamic will be different than that of fighting MP battles. While fighting complete strangers may make sense and part of the normal practice in MP battles, for a MP campaign, I think the players will need to know each other, either as friends or regular MP battle combatants. The MP campaign will be a much bigger time commitment and therefore you won't want to get involved with unknown players who may drop out the moment a campaign goes against them. Also, you will want to know that your are somewhat closely matched to your opponent(s) or else the campaign isn't fun for the poor players and lacks challenge for the better players. It is for these reasons I think a MP campaign will be more like meeting some friends for a few beers after work rather than going to a party to "socialize" like the current MP environment. That's the way I see it at least.

[Orda Khan]

I think you are right Gregoshi, this kind of approach would keep the multiplayer side of the campaign safe. I can not help thinking however, that the whole MP campaign idea is just too great to work. As you say, a save feature would be a must but I see a campaign against others lasting ages and consuming almost as much time as one's real life duties and that is bound to end up getting you in trouble

.........Orda

[LadyAnn]

There is a paradox in multiplayer campaign:

1. To make multiplayer games interesting, battles must be balanced, where it is only the skills played in battle that determine the outcome of it. Balanced in number of units, balanced in technology, balanced in money.

2. Master of strategy would stack the odds against your enemy before the battle start. You defend good spots, you attack with overwhelming force, you develop better economy so you could have larger armies than your opponent.

Also, MTW or RTW has the "sweetspot" for how large the army should be. For example, it is around 10k for MTW/VI, 8k for RTW (playing at large setting).

A third obstacle: the fun of multiplayer is not a series of 1x1. The 4x4 games are very exciting and should be incorporated into the campaign.

Thus am of opinion that multiplayer campaign that mimic the single player campaign (where each player sit around and wait for others to finish their "turn", like in Civ IV multiplayer for example) would not work and would be boring quickly. I believe we could set up forumbased campaigns which play out the diplomacy, economics and technology development, and troop movements. Then when armies collide, we meet on battlefield to resolve it.

It is easy to say I know... been toying with the idea 3 years back and have not done anything concrete. *hangs head in shame*

Annie

[BHCWarman88]

it is impossbile

where would you get the time at??you need like,at least 3 hours or so for a Online Campgain Game..

[Divinus Arma]

It is untenable.

[econ21]

I don't think anyone has mentioned it, but just to say that Myrdaal has succeeded in creating a mod for a multiplayer campaign for RTW. He's currently trying to get people interested in trying it out here at the Org. If any of you are interested, UltraWar is starting a campaign.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65101
The problem before, as I see it, is that coordination of the players is so tricky, in practice campaigns crawl to a halt.

In the Throne Room, we are trying a RTW cooperative campaign where there will be one incumbent player for 20 turns but other players will be represented by generals and if one of those generals gets into a fight, the savegame will be sent to the relevant player to fight. I've no idea if we are going to overcome the inevitable delays and coordination problems, but I'm hopeful.