Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ludens
True, but you can't do hotseat in EB1. The script can only place homeland/expansion markers for one faction, so the recruitment/MIC system won't work properly with multiple players. So it's all hypothetical anyway.
I don't think that has to be a huge problem? RTW is turnbased (and thus EB1 is as well), so you don't have to have Homeland / Expansion markers that are perfect.
Give All territories Homeland resource, so that everyone can build level 1 governments everywhere. Since the human player can apply his mind, it is relatively easy to come up with the rule that governments constructed by human players should be appropriate (i.e. as they are currently set for single-player campaigns), and thus that the Romans can't build lvl 1 Government in Greece.
Or am I missing something here?
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
No, you're right. I was thinking about previous discussions on switching-factions mid-campaign, but when every faction is human-controlled, you no longer need the script to place governments.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ludens
True, but you can't do hotseat in EB1. The script can only place homeland/expansion markers for one faction, so the recruitment/MIC system won't work properly with multiple players. So it's all hypothetical anyway.
I know, but I thought you're talking about EB2? It might be possible in M2TW.
Anyway, if you find a way to play hotseat in EB1, please count me in for a game. I would really like to try it.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Hello :)
Who says that each faction has to achieve victory conditions? Wouldn't it be more fun to do what you wanted instead of staying in the rigid lines of victory conditions? I think the point of an EB multiplayer (or another TW game minus Napoleon) is to survive and/or fufill your own victory conditions. Carthage may decide to be Carthage... a trading empire while Macedonia may want to dominate the Black Sea. It's up to the player is it not?
Ludens said that there could be "faction missions" like "uniting alexander's empire". Still, there is still a lot of warfare to be had to win, and would prevent forming alliances (an AS and Ptollie bloc would be devastating, now imagine, say, a Carthage-Rome alliance versus a AS Ptollie war... an ancient world war!!) It would have to be a do what you want style of game. If you want a Iberian Empire or an Island Alliance system, you should be able to. With total freedom, the possiblilities for political scenarios would be endless!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Shmoof
Hello :)
Who says that each faction has to achieve victory conditions? Wouldn't it be more fun to do what you wanted instead of staying in the rigid lines of victory conditions? I think the point of an EB multiplayer (or another TW game minus Napoleon) is to survive and/or fufill your own victory conditions. Carthage may decide to be Carthage... a trading empire while Macedonia may want to dominate the Black Sea. It's up to the player is it not?
Ludens said that there could be "faction missions" like "uniting alexander's empire". Still, there is still a lot of warfare to be had to win, and would prevent forming alliances (an AS and Ptollie bloc would be devastating, now imagine, say, a Carthage-Rome alliance versus a AS Ptollie war... an ancient world war!!) It would have to be a do what you want style of game. If you want a Iberian Empire or an Island Alliance system, you should be able to. With total freedom, the possiblilities for political scenarios would be endless!
I completely agree, the beauty of multiplayer is that people are unpredictible. Role playing your faction would be great, but railroading someone in one direction is boring.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stark
I completely agree, the beauty of multiplayer is that people are unpredictible. Role playing your faction would be great, but railroading someone in one direction is boring.
In my most recent campaign as the Makedonians, i wanted to have fun instead of creating the Roman Empire. I want to create the Makedonian Empire of the Pontus Euxines. In a hypothetical MP Campaign, me and, say the Pontic player may band together to create my Pontus Euxines empire. So now we have a bloc of allies there. Maybe Getai and Saromatea (spelling?) could try to stop our bloc. I just came up with that right there, just imagine it with other people. The possibilites are endless!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
I think the biggest problem with victory conditions would be preset enemies. For example, player of AS would have a hard time negotiating with his neighboars if everyone knows he has to kill them to win. Without preset goals, diplomacy remains open as it should be.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
So the big question is: Is it possible to play an EB1 multiplayer campaign game by any means and if so who wants in? :)
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
If the technical issues around a PBEM game could be resolved (e.g. the Homeland resource thing) and the mechanics of how to load, switch faction, and save the game figured out, I'd be very interested in playing.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Titus Marcellus Scato
If the technical issues around a PBEM game could be resolved (e.g. the Homeland resource thing) and the mechanics of how to load, switch faction, and save the game figured out, I'd be very interested in playing.
Switching factions, saving and loading isn't the problem, there is a mod for this that works just fine. Only problem are government markers. But giving everyone homeland resource everywhere and controling what people build by house rules sounds like a good idea.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
But how would it work? No manually controlled battles, I guess? Wouldn't it make the game very stupid, with massive spam-stacks which work adequately in auto-resolved battles and poorly in manually controlled battles?
It looks like sth that could only work with tons of HRs.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joshmahurin
Why no manual battles?
You can't use manual battle in hotseat, it's not possible to integrate them with campaign map.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
The only way this could be done is make houserules. For example, no siege battles would be allowed. That would create too many battles. You would have to wait until the city capitulated to take a town. Second, battles would be fought in MP, but only battles where the odds are greater than 3:2. You don't want silly battles taking up all the time, only the larger set pieces which I think human players would have to be smart about. Third, units that are damaged more than 50% would have to be sent back to be retrained or disbanded. You can't really represent partial units in MP battles.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cybvep
But how would it work? No manually controlled battles, I guess? Wouldn't it make the game very stupid, with massive spam-stacks which work adequately in auto-resolved battles and poorly in manually controlled battles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joshmahurin
Why no manual battles?
A MP game with the hotseat script is essentially an SP game. The difference is that when a player finishes his turn, he doesn't hit the end-turn button, but instead forwards the save-game to the next player. The next player then uses the script to switch factions and take control of his own.
So any battles will be fought against the A.I. like a normal SP game.
It is of course possible to simulate the battle in MP; but that will slow the game down. Mind you, organizing a hotseat game with more than a couple of players will require a lot of patience. Even with good organization, it's unlikely that more than three players will finish their turn on a given day. So with six players, you can only play a turn every two or three days, assuming there are no drop-outs. If the game has to stop in order to arrange MP battles, it will take even longer.
However, I still think that the King's plan for an MP campaign is feasible, and will be a lot more fun.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
A limited theatre with few factions sounds like a good option. I mean, let's face it, AR battles suxx in MP - that's not why we are playing TW games, after all. It may be fun and/or convenient to use AR in SP against the AI in order to give yourself extra challenge or auto-win easy battles, but that's it. In MP, battles are much more exciting, anyway.
Yes, yes... EBRisk sounds good, indeed. However, it would be a major logistical undertaking for the Game Master, so you need a person who has much spare time and isn't afraid of tracking all the data and resolving conflicts concerning the rules.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Awesome I've had a similar idea to kings myself in the past and I only just recently found out hotseat stuff exists so I've been fiending pretty hardcore for any chance to try some mp campaign of ANY sort with EB because it would be mind blowingly awesome no matter how slow it was. I myself am in college and don't want to be devoting my life to a game right now (and EB definitely has the power to make me do that :P ) so slow steady campaign progress would be fine with me. The game can last a whole year for all I care. I just want to get serious about organizing something, anything as far as mp campaign for EB. So lets do this people! I need my fix! :D
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
germans pritanoi lusitani karth hadastians and selekids would be the big winners
the seuleko kids would probably end up being the new overlords of the world eventually they would go straight for the throat of the ptolomaioi nobady else could afford to loose borders for so long as to remove the big threats so either the ptolemaioi would ally themselfs with the seleukids or would end up being overrun in less then 10 years
what the game doesn´t show and what would be visible in a MP game is that the seulekids are too big to phail at the start of the game and all it takes them is normally a threat against the hay the pontians or even the persians to get them in their place and aslong as the things in hellas proper aren´t resolved their only real threat would be the ptolemaioi
if the makedonians or the epirotes or even the koinon hellenon would be able to get the upper hand they would still take around 10 years and thus 10 years+ to control the balkans and all it wealth wich would grant the seulekids all the time they needed to get the pontians hayasdan parthians and mainly the ptolemaioi in their place (wich would mean either protectorates as it happened for real or dead and extinct ) even if we added the new factions the truth if that pergamon couldn´t become too much of an hassle and the seulekids could easily find allies pre defining the borders before they interacted
this being said a new quardastim faction wouldn´t have made the mistakes of the real ones they would have probably strenghten themselfs in africa and kept a weak peace with the romans in sicily altough they would have probably been kicked out of iberia by a new arevaci or lusitanian powerhouse since in this kind of games we can´t force the limitations of real life clan politics (the weakest point of the barbarian factions)
the gauls would go at each other throat for decades if not 100 or 200 years until the romans decided that enough was enough
would be interesting and in the end it would depend if the right people took the right factions or not to get the right alliances in place but those i said would be the one with the easyest job in the game and whoever took over the pontians epirotes the gauls hay and phalavians would have the hardest job depending on either a great alliance suported by deep pockest like the romans could be created or if they could live side by side with the seulekids none of them could stand alone against the seulekids and with a human player leading the seulekids bravery isn´t enough the seulekids can pick one at a time
