-
(Preface: yes this is about a multiplayer campaign, and that issue has been well-discussed here. But I think I have a small point here, worth mentioning. So sorry if you are sick of the topic.)
Ok I know this question about multiplayer campaign is going over old ground, but doesn't it seem that many of the objections to a multiplayer campaign don't arise in connection with the mongol campaign. I mean, there are only two players, for a start, so the problem about some players having lots of battle during a turn and others with none for that turn and a really long a boring wait doesn't arise. Ok, sure, there are ronin battles etc--but why not automate them, ie not allow players to take personal command of such battles. Problem solved, by means of a mechanism which is already a part of the game. Then there is the problem about timing the turns-- when are the turns resolved, simultaneously, which cause problems with incompatible moves (P1 attacks province A from B, p2 attacks B from A, where is the battle held?). Well, perhaps others have noticed the similarity between the tactical level of STW and the board game RISK. RISK works just fine by having players take turns, one at a time. P1 moves, any battle caused by the move are resolved, then P2 moves, battles are resolved, and so on. I see no reason why that can't work, and the wait for a 2 player game probably wouldn't be that bad, and could be limited if needed. I know there is a lot more to condider, but seriously-- couldn't this be done, and done fairly easily? 2 Player campaign is better than nothing, and all of the building blocks are already present in Mongol Edition.
-
Thats a very interesting idea. After re-reading it through twice i get the gist of what you think, and feel that it could definately work. Just need to find the players to play in it.
------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"
-
i like your idea, but i disagree with the "Movements rules"
i prefer a system like this:
-there is only player A, B, C and AI (AI=computer player).
-in the first turn A move first, then B, then C and then the AI.
-when all units are moved then you resolve the battle
-in the next turn, the order will be B, C, A and the AI
-so the same happends again...and again...
-and then the order will be C, A, B and the AI
I think this is a good movement system, but there is a flaw, the time consuming.
So a solution, if you don't like to wait, will be:
-everyone moves at the same time (A,B and C not the AI), but if 2 moves of diferent people "colide", the system that I said before will assign the priorities to the moves; so in the first turn any move that A made, has more priority than B; A and B has more priority than C. In the next turn B has more priority than C; B and C has more priority than A moves.
-The AI always moves their troops in the end of the season.
-When everyone had moved their troops, the battles are resolved.
It is not so dificult to implement, if you lokk carefull is just a FIFO system.
-
Yes, it was 3:30 AM down here is Australia when I wrote that post, and the linguistic expression centres in my brain had shut down for the night....
To reiterate the points I was making.
1. The Mongol campaign is only two players. This makes some of the problems raised against multiplayer campaigns moot. In particular, the problem about the excessive waiting times for some players during a turn. Say P1 has 5 battles in a turn, P2 has 2, but P3 has none. Poor old P3 has to wait for ages, maybe up to an hour, doing nothing, while the other players resolve their battles for the turn. No fun. But with a two player game, the problem will not arise, especially if we make it so that the only battles actually fought in battle-mode will involve both of the players. That brings me to the next point:
2. What about battles involving ronin provinces? Couldn't one player still have a long time to wait during a turn if his/her opponent has several battles with ronin armies to resolve? Well--just make it so that battles involving ronin are resolved using the already-existing automatic resolution facilities. So, the only time the game goes to battle-mode is when both players are involved in the battle. Simple (sure, some people will complain--but its better to have some king of multi campaign than nothing, isn't it? And isn't the MULTI-player part what it is really all about anyway? F*&! ronin).
3. The turn structure has often been cited as a stumbling block to a multi campaign. The problem is, when are moves resolved, simultaneously, or sequentially? The first option is difficult, because some moves are incompatible, in the way my first post indicated. The problem with sequential moves is, again, the excessively long wait times involved. Say there are 4 players, and each has an average of 2 battles per turn. Thats six full battles each player has to wait out each round! Again, no fun. But with two players, things look different. The sequential option seems fine, really. Just use a RISK-like sequential system, and with my other recommendations you can be sure that any battles that need to be fought will involve both players. Fun fun fun. Its only when more than 2 players are in the game that the problem of waiting times arises.
4. Of course, Generalisimo's idea for simultaneous turn resolution could work too. But for that matter, why not flip a coin to decide "who gets the march on who" for any particular case? In the long run, no-one will have an unfair advantage.
5. Why Mongols? Well, first because its already a two player campaign. AND the narrative rationale for the restriction to 2 players is already present. But, of course, there are no real objections to allowing two Japanese sides with such a campaign structure.
6. So, CA/EA or whoever, when can we expect the multiplayer campaign patch? (Pleeeeeaaaaasssssseeeeeeee)
-
You are quite right, zakusan. A two player campaign would evade the headaches altogether if the ronin battles were auto-resolved.
-
