Empire delayed until March; Multiplayer campaign included!

[Pinxit]

Brill news! This new feature sounds really cool actually lol. A Multiplayer Campaign mode sounds so much fun! And great to see their taking the extra time to make the game perfect as well!

I will destroy you all!

What I do wonder is how they will solve the problem of time. There will obviously be a lot of AI factions and having that in mind, how fun will it be for me as to wait until a 1 hour battle between my human opponent and my AI opponent takes place? Will I be able to observe their battle? Or is it the old fashioned "Tea time, call me when you are done".

[TevashSzat]

Like everyone above, this seems really neat and may help revitalize a what I perceive to be small TW multiplayer community

[Ishmael]

2 things:

1. Do you think it's likely that it will just be autoresolved battles to start with? Or do you think they would do battles by agreement?

2. Im a bit worried by the phrasing here. In particular, "allow us to implement the underlying technology", and "will be made available to all Empire Total War buyers post release." This suggests to me that it wont be available upon release, but in a patch or something. Yet again, i may be completely wrong. Whats everybody else's opinions?

Still, it looks very promising, especially as they are calling the 1 v 1 a beta. We can but hope for more...(dramatic music)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I wonder if you actually fight battles head to head or if it's just like hotseat...

[Martok]

....


[Martok is speechless]

[Martok]

By the way, I'm merging this with the thread announcing the delay. The two topics are closely interrelated, plus this is also a sticky-worthy announcement.

[Martok]

Thread merged with existing (stickied) thread on the same topic.

[Polemists]

Sorry but not behind this not in the slighest.

First there is the obvious fact that you need not give out concreate dates if you expect delays. Which leads to the idea that CA has either made a mistake or taken on more then they can.

Either way, it's bad. I never had a single problem with MTW, MTW 2 or RTW that was insurmountable, I may be in the minority but judging by reviews I read in magazines, I doubt it. If someone took all the comments, improvements, and ideas that this forum had for games and put them in pre release it would take YEARS, to do a game that would even please 20% of this forum.

Then you look at the very idea that the so called "Vaulted feature" has no implementation upon release and is nothing more then a poorly made side feature that will be poorly maintained. I think you will all be very disappointed.

This would be the equivelent of players asking for naval combat in MTW 2, and the devs saying, sure, 1v1, post launch. Before empire's engine, before they took time to research, before they took time to playtest.

Again I am not against Multiplayer Campaign maps but so far CA has had a "We won't put it in, unless we put it in right" kind of attitude. Why change now?

I am highly disappointed. The actual month in and of itself is irrelevant, the reasons behind it stink of SEGA's hand. (The guys behind Spartan and Viking)

Maybe this is a rant, but I still think this is a bad move by CA.

[Ituralde]

2. Im a bit worried by the phrasing here. In particular, "allow us to implement the underlying technology", and "will be made available to all Empire Total War buyers post release." This suggests to me that it wont be available upon release, but in a patch or something. Yet again, i may be completely wrong. Whats everybody else's opinions?

The way I read it, and the way it is explained here for those who speak German:
http://www.gamestar.de/news/pc/strat...total_war.html

It is indeed only the foundation that is being laid in the game. The actual Multiplayer Campaign will come with an additional patch some time later. Maybe Summer 2009 or something like that. I hate to spoil your fun guys, but so far it's one month delay without an immediate result. Just more waiting it seems. Well, I have time!

[Fisherking]

There must be other problems that require a fix before release. The fact that they are putting in a beta version of a multiplayer campaign is just a way to ease the sting a bit, I think.

The trouble is that CA is so closed mouthed about it… So we will see the game in March…maybe…

It would be better if there was a little more in depth information on the thing. It could be that the modifications are all in conjunction with making the game operate with the multiplayer mode or it could be other problems. Either way it would just be nice to know.

It doesn’t seem that any of the CA people are rushing in to explain though, does it?

I love this Sires and think that CA does an over all, outstanding job, but being a loyal fan it would be nice if they shared a bit more information with us on the reason for the delay.

[Polemists]

Yes, so how many weeks has it been since we were supposed to get dev diary 4, 3? Who thinks they are keeping it to themselves just to prolong marketing as now they have a whole other month and no public advertisment to feed.

[Fisherking]

Sorry to double post but I just read the German Article.

From what I get from it, (and my German is far from perfect) it says they wanted the additional time to look for bugs and balance the game…possibly because the multiplayer mode is going into the game???

The multiplayer mode will not be include in the release but later added, but they found it good that CA was adding it from the wishes of their fans.

[Wishazu]

If the multiplayer campaign is implemented correctly then I may consider falling back in love with the Total war series. Even if the MP campaign is only 1v1 at least I will be able to crush my brothers empire beneath my bootheel. :)

[General SupaCrunk]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Megas Methuselah]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes.

[Sir Beane]

One good thing that could come from a 1 vs 1 campaign is that we will be able to see poor, hapless fools attempt to take on Askthepizzaguy and his insane, bloody blitz tactics. Truly a glorious and gory spectacle the likes of which hasn't been seen since Rome decided to pit lions against helpless christians.

[Thermal]

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/938/938189p1.html

one v one but a good start

[Belgolas]

yup but adding it also delayed the game one month.

[Thermal]

yup but adding it also delayed the game one month.

small price to pay IMO

[Thermal]

LOL i realize theres already a thread on this, sorry, either merge or delete, thanks

[Martok]

No problem. Threads merged.

[hellenes]

After this all the "perfect "AI" pipedreamers can stop whining....

[Polemists]

After this all the gamers who actually wanted a release date on time as promised and a campaign multiplayer that actually works will keep whining.

Oh, and on release day, when the multiplayer add on is not released and wont' be released till July, the other whiners can continue on again.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, this is a unwise move on CA's part in my view. Of course they can do what they want, because they have no competition in this game market and even if they delayed it a year people would still buy it cause it's the only decent turn based strategy game being made.

I just expected more out of CA, sadly disappointed. For those of you saying it's only a month, keep in mind this is the FIRST delay, there's nothing to stop them delaying it another month.

[hellenes]

After this all the gamers who actually wanted a release date on time as promised and a campaign multiplayer that actually works will keep whining.

Oh, and on release day, when the multiplayer add on is not released and wont' be released till July, the other whiners can continue on again.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, this is a unwise move on CA's part in my view. Of course they can do what they want, because they have no competition in this game market and even if they delayed it a year people would still buy it cause it's the only decent turn based strategy game being made.

I just expected more out of CA, sadly disappointed. For those of you saying it's only a month, keep in mind this is the FIRST delay, there's nothing to stop them delaying it another month.

I would take a delay over a rushed half finished product any day of the week...

[Polemists]

I would take a delay over a rushed half finished product any day of the week...

That's the whole point, if they would have alloted thier time correctly, they wouldn't need to delay because it would be a finished product. Now you have no idea your getting a finished product, even if you wait a year, whatever the problem in question is, may still not be fixed.

The prefectionists can praise this delay all they want, just don't expect the rest of us to be happy about it. (I am a naysayer, I admit. )

[SirGrotius]

That's amazing. I don't know if it's been answered, but we definitely need a save. Will all battles be auto-resolved unless you're fighting against the other person?

[Martok]

That's amazing. I don't know if it's been answered, but we definitely need a save. Will all battles be auto-resolved unless you're fighting against the other person?

I believe that will be a key question. Whether or not we can manually fight out battles -- and if so, which ones -- is going to be a big determinant of how the MP campaign plays.

[Thermal]

The prefectionists can praise this delay all they want, just don't expect the rest of us to be happy about it. (I am a naysayer, I admit. )

but its only a month for tons more experience! if it was going to add 3 months or more i would be very unhappy about it, but its within a proximity i can cope with, longs it isnt delayed too much more, all games tend to be later than there target anyway, im not to bothered about prefection, but maximization to an extent where possible is rather nice

i imagine its all over an online lobby where the players do most of the campaign in one sitting, though i'm sure they'll be battles and a save facility, if CA know anything about there target market, they'll know this is important too regardless, i'd still go online for the campaign alone, and mods/patches will likely expand it to more than 1 v 1, though IMHO it would be too much hassle to have more than say 4 people, as getting turns done would be as tiresome as hot-seating


a good idea to me would be that all battles against the computer are auto resolved, and battles between the human players are fought, so players arent waiting endlessly for the other player to fight against the CPU

[Wishazu]

I believe that will be a key question. Whether or not we can manually fight out battles -- and if so, which ones -- is going to be a big determinant of how the MP campaign plays.

It would seem kinda pointless to me to include a feature that the fans have been crying out for since Shogun and then water it down by removing half the experience of the game - fighting the actual battles.

[Megas Methuselah]

@Wishazu

Yes, I agree. However, if all battles are playable, then the multiplayer campaign will most probably be a very time-consuming affair. Is that good or bad?

I just expected more out of CA, sadly disappointed. For those of you saying it's only a month, keep in mind this is the FIRST delay, there's nothing to stop them delaying it another month.

Simmer down. Let's take a leaf out of Methuselah's book and look on the bright side of the whole situation: this gives you one more month (maybe more?) to enjoy wine and girls before ETW clutches your heart forever.

Besides, as long as the game is released by summer, I'm not whining. If everyone else is, well, it's not my concern.