Empire delayed until March; Multiplayer campaign included!

[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

[Thermal]

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

i agree with him

[Megas Methuselah]

@777Ares777

But I want to fight the AI. I never trusted Auto-Resolve battles before because I could win a battle easily where the auto-resolve would lose. Not kool.

[Sheogorath]

@777Ares777

But I want to fight the AI. I never trusted Auto-Resolve battles before because I could win a battle easily where the auto-resolve would lose. Not kool.

I've always been wary of Autoresolve. I dont use it unless it's like, less than a quarter red and the enemy is all mounted archers while I have only infantry or something like that, which would involve hours of chasing dudes around the map.

It doesn't seem to like me, for some reason. It hands out 'LOL DEVASTATING DEFEAT' more often that I care, and applies casualties to random units. Which annoys me. Especially when it spares the newly trained peasants and takes out half a unit of elite archers.

[ULC]

I've always been wary of Autoresolve. I dont use it unless it's like, less than a quarter red and the enemy is all mounted archers while I have only infantry or something like that, which would involve hours of chasing dudes around the map.

It doesn't seem to like me, for some reason. It hands out 'LOL DEVASTATING DEFEAT' more often that I care, and applies casualties to random units. Which annoys me. Especially when it spares the newly trained peasants and takes out half a unit of elite archers.

I can attest to this - Nothing is more irriating to lose men from units you'd have not used during the battle (I usually have an elite reserve) or lose to a stack half the size of yours (or worse, losing to a stack 5 times your size when you know if you fought it you'd win )

And I've had worse then 'LOL DEVASTATING DEFEAT'. I think the computer said "roflcopter" once late at night when I was tired and just wanted a campaign to end so I was in an autresolve frenzy - one autoresovle later and I find my frontier in shambles and the interior of my Empire in danger...from frenchmen...

But still, the idea of online multiplayer campaigns is worth drooling over. I honestly want to see more on this though before I drool further - because if history tells, I'll be wiping that spit away and burying ETW somewhere in the nether realms of my CD rack...

[Thermal]

Yeah i'm with YLC and sheo, on Rome total war with carthage or selucids, don't you notice when fighting auto-resolves when u have elephants they always do loads of damage to them

i.e

one battle i outnumber romans carthage vs scipii

i win, but out of my 2 units of elephants, lose at least 3/4 of them, my other units are barely touched, lol

[Sir Beane]

Yeah i'm with YLC and sheo, on Rome total war with carthage or selucids, don't you notice when fighting auto-resolves when u have elephants they always do loads of damage to them

i.e

one battle i outnumber romans carthage vs scipii

i win, but out of my 2 units of elephants, lose at least 3/4 of them, my other units are barely touched, lol

That's because the A.I recognises the ferocity and strength of the mighty war elephant and rightly focuses their pathetic power into defeating your heroic pachyderms.

Sure they might lose the battle because of it, but they can die with the honor of having defeated the mightiest beast of all.

[Thermal]

@777Ares777

But I want to fight the AI. I never trusted Auto-Resolve battles before because I could win a battle easily where the auto-resolve would lose. Not kool.

I agree however

1: you'd still be able to fight against the human player, the VITAL feature
2: you could easily put the battle differculty on easy, same with campaign if it works similiarily, meaning greater chance of winning auto resolve while having a challenge against your human opponent
3: the AI is being re vamped, so the auto resolve feature could be improved to be fairer
4: vitally, the other player wont have to wait ages on turns where you end up having 1 more or more battles, if these campaigns are to run smoothly, long battles where the other has finished there turn long back would annoy me massively and waste time


I think the good outway the bad, as there aren't many other suggestions that i see working, still get the good fights, but by making AI easier it solves those auto resolve problems and increases the campaigns speed

[Wishazu]

@777Ares777

But I want to fight the AI. I never trusted Auto-Resolve battles before because I could win a battle easily where the auto-resolve would lose. Not kool.

There is no need to auto resolve battles at all with a 1v1 campaign. Simply have the other player command the AI faction`s army for the battles. That way no one is going to be sitting around doing nothing. The other player will certainly be trying his hardest to cause as much damage to your army as possible.

[ULC]

There is no need to auto resolve battles at all with a 1v1 campaign. Simply have the other player command the AI faction`s army for the battles. That way no one is going to be sitting around doing nothing. The other player will certainly be trying his hardest to cause as much damage to your army as possible.

Under most circumstances, yes, but if both players are dealing with the same Faction, then the one who gets to control the AI army will try a more Pyrrhic battle IMHO, rather then play his best.