Hotseat campaign with Expansion!

I don't know if this has been noted before. If so, my apologies, I haven't been able to frequent the forum for a few weeks now. Just thought I'd post this one sentence from CA's press release regarding the "Kingdoms" Expansion, to hit the shelves sometime in autumn:

"Each of the campaigns is also fully compatible with a brand new Hotseat multiplayer mode, making this an essential addition to any Total War fans’ collection."

If this is true, then some people's dreams have finally come true! I've wanted this so much for such a long time, it's great to finally see an MP campaign integrated!

:2thumbsup:

Aye it's true, Hotseat won't come with the next patch. Hopefully they will release a patch for Hotseat only, but I think we have to wait till the expansion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empirate

If this is true, then some people's dreams have finally come true!

:2thumbsup:

---

They added a hotseat mode and ditched gamespy? :beam:

How far does it go though, if it is just a hotseat mode for the same computer that doesn't really excite me at all to perfectly honest... although I've always been a bit cynical in spite of my optimism. My opinion would of course be completely reversed if this feature was playable over a LAN or the internet, or even just had a feature where you could save the game and pass it on via e-mail.

Does a 'hotseat multiplayer mode' mean you can play as a couple of different factions on the same pc?, or have a pbem or LAN campaign game with another person?.
If it is neither of the above it seems a little bit pointless to me.

It would be at least the first one, you can play several factions on the same PC.

As for it being useable in LAN/MP, I seriously doubt it.

I assume that this Multiplayer campaign will be in Real-Time. Because if the online campaign was TBS it would have to be on this format: A server would have to be set up so that a campaign will be over a long period of time. For example, a person would do his turn, finish it, go offline and everyone else would have to finish their turn before people's new turn could begin; but even with that, how are people going to be able to do the battles if others might not be online at the same time?

If it was in Real-Time more could be finished without having to set up some kind of server so that everyone has to be online at the same time but more could get done in a small period of time.

If it was online it would be the same as HoMaM. You would take your turn, click end turn, the next person would go, make their moves then click end turn, etc etc. All battles would be AUTO RESOLVED. Everyone would be online at the same time.

I read in the total war official site that the expansion was leaked.... anyone know anything, especially where to downlaod it?

would be nice, lol....

Quote:

---

I read in the total war official site that the expansion was leaked.... anyone know anything, especially where to downlaod it?

---

Wouldnt this be against org rules?

No, but saying their sig rescrictions are rubbish probably is.

I cant even correct my bad grammer as I have to wait 265 seconds.

*Restrictions

Quote:

---

No, but saying their sig rescrictions are rubbish probably is.

---

I believe giving a link to an illegal download is against Org rules though I maybe wrong.

I think they mixed up the 1.2 patch with Kingdoms. It hasn't been leaked that I know of :2thumbsup:
And you wouldn't download it if it was right? :laugh4: :pirate2:

Hotseat means you can play multiple factions on the one machine. However, there is nothing stopping people from organising online games by email or msn. You can setup a game with each player as a faction and simply send the saves around.
I believe there is also some hooks in there to launch directly into a hotseat game from save-game which will give the possibility to mod a custom program to automate the sending and launching of save games.

My son and I have been playing hotseat using the mod suggested here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...t=74132&page=4. It would work except for the fact that the AI cheats by interfering in defensive battles to override your pwn troops orders.

If someone can work out how to stop it doing that we would be able to play hotseat now.

Oh! BTW: Great news if its true that CA are dumpng Gamespy...I hate that company and won't play any multiplayer games that use them.

Where does it say they are dumping gamespy, I see a rave coming if they are.

Actually, I think it was just a bit of wishful thinking by Monarch above.

I have actually decided not to buy some games because of their use of gamespy for multiplayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caliban

I think they mixed up the 1.2 patch with Kingdoms. It hasn't been leaked that I know of :2thumbsup:
And you wouldn't download it if it was right? :laugh4: :pirate2:

Hotseat means you can play multiple factions on the one machine. However, there is nothing stopping people from organising online games by email or msn. You can setup a game with each player as a faction and simply send the saves around.

---

I know you're not going to change anything because of this post but just a thought. Why not put some sort of interface within the actual game where you put someones email in and it sends the save to them. This way you can advertise as its truly online mp, "online" sounds better than "one machine".

IMO its relatively simple things like this (and say making the game autopatch when you try to log in) that will just make Total War such a more easier thing to play,

M2TW hotseat campaining with expansion is so bad that when i saw it i stopped playing m2tw 2 weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)

M2TW hotseat campaining with expansion is so bad that when i saw it i stopped playing m2tw 2 weeks.

---

This post makes no sense. You've never played the expansion.

No, it doesnt make sense. Even if it was bad, it wouldnt make the game any worse, it just wouldnt add anything.

Why does everyone talk about these via email online campaigns? Real time, online, turn based campaigns have been used before, i.e Heroes Of Might And Magic. Why cant they just do the same thing with M2TW?

The last thing MTW2 needs is a real-time campaign mode. I mean think about it....are you really going to sit online for 6 hours staring at a screen while a dozen other people make their campaign moves.

The solution has to be PBEM, its the only practical way to play a massive multiplayer turn based game. Obvoiously the battle can be played in real-time which is why I suggested the battle management function to control the setting up and registering of battle results.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83592

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

The last thing MTW2 needs is a real-time campaign mode. I mean think about it....are you really going to sit online for 6 hours staring at a screen while a dozen other people make their campaign moves.

---

I'm confused, this isn't what would happen in real time. In real time everyone would make their moves simultaneously. The way you've described acts like a turn based campaign but with everyone online at the same time basically doing pbem but with alot of sitting around.

Seems everyone is a loser, more so when gs enters the fray :D :D :D

Didz, Real time online campaign is perfectally doable, its been done in other, similar games. Yes, it takes along time, but you can have turn time limits. It took ages to complete a game in other games that had this feature, but people where usually willing to stick it out. And if someone wanted to leave, control of their units was taken over by the AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monarch

I'm confused, this isn't what would happen in real time. In real time everyone would make their moves simultaneously. The way you've described acts like a turn based campaign but with everyone online at the same time basically doing pbem but with alot of sitting around.

---

Even if that were plausible....and it isn't....then you are still looking at a dozen people being online simultaneously and continuously for in excess of 6 hours. That just isn't going to happen, the people management problems are too overwhelming to contemplate.

More importantly the game design issues that arise as a result of real time campaign movement are enormous and were amply demonstrated by the designers of 1813.

The most critical of these becomes the interaction between campaign engine and battle engine which becomes a nightmare. Imagine a dozen players all making their moves simultaneously resulting in multiple randomly timed collisions between forces on the campaign map, each of which has to trigger a transition to the battle engine to resolve, a variable campaign movement freeze not only of the units involved dependant upon the duration of the battle, the adjustment of the movement and location of all other units on the campaign map to compensate for time expended. The potential for additional collisions to occur between forces moving in real-time on the campaign map with units already committed to battle and frozen by the battle engine which are now in a different time frame that has to be re-synced with the campign game to allow for timing of reinforcements and the fact that during battle the player still needs to control the real-time movement of the rest of his countries armies still in campaign mode. An issue which made Lords of the Realm unplayable as you came out of the battle engine to discover that in your absence the enemy had taken half your country.

The complexities for both programming and the human interface are just too much to make it viable and personally I would not go near a game whose designers were stupid enough to try it. As far as I am concerned it has to be PBEM or nothing, as PBEM is the only feasible way to play a long stragegy game with multiple players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Someguy

Didz, Real time online campaign is perfectally doable, its been done in other, similar games. Yes, it takes along time, but you can have turn time limits. It took ages to complete a game in other games that had this feature, but people where usually willing to stick it out. And if someone wanted to leave, control of their units was taken over by the AI.

---

I'd be interested to know which.....the longest successful multi-player online game I have ever played was Gettysburg.

And I think I only ever managed to complete one game successfully with more than two players. The vast majority failed within the first two hours of play, mainly due to player drops. Some of these were technical, others were due to real life interference and not a few were due to the simple fact that people aren't prepared to stay committed for hours to a game particularly if their Corps, Division, Faction, Team isn't the centre of attention and active.

I doubt anyone here has ever played such a game successfully against more than one other player. Quite apart from anything else the need for food and comfort breaks would make it unviable.

Incidently: This will be the biggest challenge that the computer gaming industry has to overcome before to can develop anything like the holodeck simulations depicted in Star-Trek. Quite simply people will die whilst involved in those games unless some system is introduced to keep them fed and hygenic whilst playing out their fantasy.

HoMaM, and Deadlock. I played many games that when for 5+ hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Even if that were plausible....and it isn't....

---

I don't recall saying it was.

Fix gs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Someguy

HoMaM, and Deadlock. I played many games that when for 5+ hours.

---

Assuming that HoMaM is 'Heroes of Might and Magic' and having looked up Deadlock on gamespot I'm confused...as both these game are turn based not real-time online play.

I regularly play Heroes of Might and Magic as hotseat with my children so I am aware of the format and being turn based it can easily be played PBEM. Nevertheless, you did well to keep more than two players online for 5 hours but I'm pretty sure you would never complete an MTW2 campaign in that time, not with a full compliment of player controlled factions anyway.

The problem with turn based play is that it takes so longer between players turns. so if everyone is kept hanging about online there going to be a lot of dead time. HoMaM is particularly bad for this and I regularly get moaned at by my children becuase they claim I hire too many heroes and so it takes too long for me to make my move. Likewise, the battles conducted at the end of the turn can easily add 15 minutes to a turn duration.

Not too mcuh of a problem olaying hotseat as we usually wander off and watch TV or get a cup of tea between turns and get a shout when its our go. I certainly wouldn't want to be kept hanging about online for an hour or so whilst a dozen other players made their MTW2 moves online. I 'd rather just have an email pop-up appear when it was my turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monarch

I don't recall saying it was.

---

Aah! Then I obviously misunderstood your previous post, or you misunderstood mine. I'm certainly not of the opinion that any sort of online real-time campaign system for MTW2 is viable. Though I have no objection to CA including it as an option, just as long as its not the only option.

4 Games going on right now. One rather inactive RTW game also.

http://generalscollective.com/forums...hp?board=104.0

When I say "Real-time" online campaign, I mean it as though everyone is on the game at the same time, rather than this PBEM or whatever (though im not 100% sure what that is) The MTW turn system is very similar to HoMaM, and I dont see why they couldn't have a similar feature in their game (i'm no tech expert, if there is an issue, please tell me). In HoMaM you have your castles and heroes, you micro your buildings and training and stuff, similar to what you do in MTW. Then, you move your heroes around and engage people, similar to the way you move armies around in MTW. One person takes a turn, and then the next person does. I didnt mean everyone would be making their turns simultaneously as this obviosly wouldnt work. Why couldnt they do this in M2TW? It would be EXACTLY the same as the hotseat campaign they are introudcing, only playing online. Providing all the battles where resolved using the auto resolve feature of course, this way you wouldnt have to wait 40 minutes in between turns.

The games would obviously take a long time to play, but if you are only playing with 1 or 2 other people, who you know, they could introduce a save mode (I think they had this is deadlock and HoMaM too) and you could all agree to save and finish it up some other time.

I just remembered something. A game I used to play, had a LAN campaign, it was in like 1996 and it was WW2 themed.. I forget the name, but anyway, It allowed people to simultaneously manage their cities and construction queues in a sort of "community turn" then, one by one, people moved their army stacks around, it also used an auto resolve thing (considering it didnt have a battle engine, it was like "your planes kill 32 tanks, 11 planes where lost. result: Decisive Victory" .This would be similar to what they could do in M2TW. In this format, everyone did their managing first, then the battles where fought. This could probably work in M2TW, everyone could set their taxes, and queues, and when everyone had done that, one by one they move their armies and agents around. If the auto resolve function was used, this would reduce boredom and downtime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Someguy

When I say "Real-time" online campaign, I mean it as though everyone is on the game at the same time, rather than this PBEM or whatever (though im not 100% sure what that is)

---

PBEM = Play By E-Mail basically each player completes their turn and then passes the game file to the next player via Email or in some cases by use of an online document repository. When its your turn your get a notification, load the game and view the other players turns before making your own and passing the file onto the next player. It means that players are not kept hanging about waiting for others to complete their moves and can complete their own turns when it is convenient to them. So, there is very little player drop and players are not left hanging on the internet until 4am due to international time zones etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Someguy

The MTW turn system is very similar to HoMaM, and I dont see why they couldn't have a similar feature in their game (i'm no tech expert, if there is an issue, please tell me).

---

I agree…as I said in another post I think MTW2 is fortunate in that its design team has stuck to a turn based system for campaign play and that certainly makes it a lot easier to design a multi-player system. My only concern is that in introducing multi-player some idiot designer will decide to change to a real-time system like they did with Lords of the Realm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Someguy

In HoMaM you have your castles and heroes, you micro your buildings and training and stuff, similar to what you do in MTW. Then, you move your heroes around and engage people, similar to the way you move armies around in MTW. One person takes a turn, and then the next person does. I didnt mean everyone would be making their turns simultaneously as this obviosly wouldnt work. Why couldnt they do this in M2TW? It would be EXACTLY the same as the hotseat campaign they are introudcing, only playing online. Providing all the battles where resolved using the auto resolve feature of course, this way you wouldn’t have to wait 40 minutes in between turns.

---

Well I think that’s the real issue that needs to be resolved. Personally, I would like to retain the option of fighting the tactical battles and sieges in real-time and so there needs to be a system for storing battle data files generated by the campaign engine during each turn so that the battles can be played and the results registered back with campaign engine before the start of the next game turn.

As I said earlier, Thunder At Sea does this quite successfully for Fighting Steel so it is possible. But it needs some sort of battle file management system built into the multi-player interface which will log all unresolved battles and handle the registration and verification of the results. HoMaM doesn’t have this problem as its battles are turn based too, so they are merely treated as an extension of the campaign system. The problem for MTW2 is managing to switch from turn base to real-time and back again. My view is that it would be simpler merely to treat the campaign engine and the battle engine as two separate programs and concentrate on the transfer of data between them rather than trying to integrate the two systems into a single seamless solution as they are for the single player campaign.

So, basically all twelve players would make their campaign moves, during which perhaps a number of battles would arise. These battles would be logged as unresolved by the campaign engine and the players involved would be notified that they need to arrange a suitable time to fight the battle with their opponent. As each battle is fought the results are registered and validated with the campaign game and when all the battles have been fought (or ceded) the campaign engine would release the game for the next round of campaign moves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Silent-Someguy

The games would obviously take a long time to play, but if you are only playing with 1 or 2 other people, who you know, they could introduce a save mode (I think they had this is deadlock and HoMaM too) and you could all agree to save and finish it up some other time.

---

True if you only plan to play MTW2 with one or two people that are personally known to you then a lot of the problems I am concerned about wouldn't arise.

But I think it would be a mistake to design a multi-player campaign system around the premise that its only going to be played by 1 or 2 people who are friends. If that were the case then the most sensible option would be Hotseat, LAN or Direct Play.

What I am interested in is playing MTW2 as a proper multi-player campaign with every faction controlled by at least one human player. So, theoretically that’s at least 21 people involved and possibly more if my idea of team play using players to roleplay individual family members were to work.

I have played this sort of game before, but only as a moderated PBEM map game using the Battleground game system to provide a tactical map. The games are long but are a great way of making friends (and enemies) and the diplomatic negotiations are very real.