PBEM campaigns not worth it..

[x-dANGEr]

I'm just expressing my opinion that PBEM campaigns aren't worth their trouble (The ones where you use a script to make everyone use his faction in the same campaign).

1) Auto-resolve battles.
2) It takes a long time to get a turn going.
3) It still isn't polished, and a bug might occur that would ruin the whole campaign.

So, I think the classic each player has 20 turns ones are waaaay better. What are your thoughts?

P.S. If this is not the right place to discuss this, pardon me.
P.S.S. If their is a free spot in one of those which doesn't requite scripts and such complicated phases, call me in. ~;)

[Glaucus]

I'm just expressing my opinion that PBEM campaigns aren't worth their trouble (The ones where you use a script to make everyone use his faction in the same campaign).

1) Auto-resolve battles.
2) It takes a long time to get a turn going.
3) It still isn't polished, and a bug might occur that would ruin the whole campaign./QUOTE]

Well, I don't mind auto-resolving battles, I think it is worth it just to play against a human on the campaign map, you can have better battles with someone in regular MP. And every couple of days you play a turn, so it is hardly time-consuming.


[QUOTE=x-dANGEr]P.S.S. If their is a free spot in one of those which doesn't requite scripts and such complicated phases, call me in. ~;)

Well, I highly recomend The Will of The Senate, but it requires RTR and lots of rules since we're re-enacting the Roman senate complete with votes and consuls. The consul plays the game for his term, but if the person in game you represent is leading a battle, we'll save it and you conduct that battle. So it doesn't fit your requirements, but we have some extra characters in game that you can have if you'd like to give it a try.

[RickFGS]

Beating up the AI in a PBEM of RTR on the higgest of th higgest levels as become just to dammm boring and easy for me, i´m interested in the PBEM multiplayer because individuals are much more cunning, the auto-resolve is a major turn-down, (probably the reason Activision didnt include the multicampaign option in the game, its not possible to make online, only hotseat, and hotseat isnt just profitable), even an auto-resolve multiplayer campaign will for sure prove more difficult and demanding in game strategies, tricks and other things not yet explored against the AI.

You may be a monster versus the AI but against a human player you can never really know ;) and i think thats the join of this multi campaign script Mrydrall as provided for us, it allows for people to test is RTW management and army building against each other.

As for the manual battles, we are still voting if against AI will be allowed, so its not that bad, and if a decisive battle is worth to play, why not institute a rule for one manual battle vs a player, arranging a datehour to play a replicable combat of the armies on the field on the costum battle option (this a bit over the top and hard to aarange of course and only by the own will of the players in question)

Small Multiplayer PBEMS like 4 players in a similar GMT zone can make for a fast multi campaign PBEM and arrange to play the games by direct IP connection on the custom battle options, the players would then check what units they had loss and disband that units on the campaign save.

[General_Sun]

This is even better than Civ4 Multiplayer. Why? More players, more drama, more tension. More time, more diplomacy going on, as well as better playing quite likely.

[x-dANGEr]

I meant that it takes ages for a turn to pass, that if I had a certain strategy printed in my mind, I would forget it, and rather become not-interested later on..

And eehmm.. Playing on VH/VH, and auto-resolving is just like disbanding half of your army then playing the battle yourself (You may win, but you will still lose if auto-resolved). For instance, you are WRE, am the Huns, I win all the battles because simply they are 'auto-resolved'..

[RickFGS]

this is not Barbarian Invasion, this is RTW with no mods, the original patched to 1.5, the auto-resolve in RTW is pretty much balanced excepct for some special cases.

[x-dANGEr]

Nice helpful tone.

Edit:

So you're saying the script is unusable on BI?

[RickFGS]

Donno about that, it must work for sure, but then again, BI sucks compared to RTW IMHO

[Silver Rusher]

No, it's not unusable on BI at all. I have great fun playing BI MP Campaigns with my friends.

[x-dANGEr]

But don't you face the problem I mentioned? Because as far as I know, bridges, kills and forests have nothing to do with the Auto Resolve calculation.

[Myrddraal]

Obviously we're restricted by auto-resolve, but it's something I'm willing to sacrifice to play against challenging human players.

@Silver, I'd like to hear about your campaigns :smile:

@Rick, please keep the tone civil, this was not an attack on MP campaigns, just a question. I'd appreciate it if you edit your post.

[TinCow]

I'm just expressing my opinion that PBEM campaigns aren't worth their trouble (The ones where you use a script to make everyone use his faction in the same campaign).

1) Auto-resolve battles.
2) It takes a long time to get a turn going.
3) It still isn't polished, and a bug might occur that would ruin the whole campaign.

So, I think the classic each player has 20 turns ones are waaaay better. What are your thoughts?

P.S. If this is not the right place to discuss this, pardon me.
P.S.S. If their is a free spot in one of those which doesn't requite scripts and such complicated phases, call me in. ~;)

There's more than enough room for many kinds of games. I see no reason why people can't give the multiplayer ones a try. I agree that they look difficult to pull off in the long-term, but I think they can do it if they have a dedicated enough crowd. Personally, I would love to see them succeed. It looks like the world's greatest game of play-by-mail-chess.

I do also recommend the Will of the Senate if you wish to play a single-player only game. It is far more complex than the usual PBEM campaign, but I think those of us who have gotten into it are enjoying it far more than the usual ones. That said, if it isn't to your liking... start a new one! Like I stated before, there's more than enough room in here.

[x-dANGEr]

Obviously, this thread has been understood in a wrong way, so I think I need to stop discussing the subject, or more people will feel 'insulted'.

[Myrddraal]

There is no need for that :smile:. I for one am not insulted, and I'd like to answer any questions you have.

The thing is, the two are quite different really, they often attract different players.

[Monarch]

There is no need for that :smile:. I for one am not insulted, and I'd like to answer any questions you have.

The thing is, the two are quite different really, they often attract different players.

Agreed, mainly due to the "normal" PBeM's system of having the write up in story form, many players don't like this and so stay away. I guess somebody could start a run of the mill pbem thats just about the play. But anyway, yeah I agree they attract different people.

[Silver Rusher]

Beating up the AI in a PBEM of RTR on the higgest of th higgest levels as become just to dammm boring and easy for me
Wow, you are SO modest, aren't you?

[RickFGS]

lol, maybe i was a bit overconfident there....But its became a bit easy yes....in manual battles at least....

[Silver Rusher]

I have to agree with you on one thing, Rick, the AI is like a beginner who has just bought the game and is still trying to get to grips with it. I consider myself to be a good campaign map player but only good on the battles if my army is cavalry based (this is why I want to play an MP Campaign so desperately you see)

[RickFGS]

In medium difficulty cavalry armies rout every thing the Ai launches against you, even hopiltes cause it advances in gaps. It should be fun to see what happens on auto-resolve..