Empire delayed until March; Multiplayer campaign included!

[Pinxit]

@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?

Good or bad? Awesome! I want one game to last for months. This shouldnt require both players online at the same time. The game running constantly one month is not an option. What they need to do is to let the player install a puny software that sleeps until the other player is done doing his turn. Then, if the other player isnt currently playing, the ending of a turn will notify this puny software which then alerts you. Sort of like an email. "Its your turn"-message, even if you are not playing the game.
This way you could have lots of different on going matches with several players, and the tiny puny small software will alert you when its your turn and in which save it is in your turn. Possibly launch the game just by clicking on the "alert"-thingy.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Megas Methuselah]

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.

When you're playing as a horse-archer faction, auto-resolve is out of the question. Losing a completely one-sided battle against a half-stack of untrained peasants and militia is ridiculous, especially when it could have been a victory in less than 5 minutes had you played it out yourself.

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

No man can ask for a more honourable death.

[Sir Beane]

I hate autoresolve with a burning passion. But i'll be damned if it isn't much much better at taking cities than I am. Taking a huge city with cannon towers and a few hundred archers as defense? No problem! We'll do it and only lose one man!

I would love to know how the A.I thinks that is possible. Because I've yet to be able to do it. It can even take cities when 99% of its army consists of cavalry, and the rest in one unit of peasants with a ladder.

[Fisherking]

I hate autoresolve with a burning passion. But i'll be damned if it isn't much much better at taking cities than I am. Taking a huge city with cannon towers and a few hundred archers as defense? No problem! We'll do it and only lose one man!

I would love to know how the A.I thinks that is possible. Because I've yet to be able to do it. It can even take cities when 99% of its army consists of cavalry, and the rest in one unit of peasants with a ladder.

No! It really just depends on what your units are and what is there. Most of the time Auto resolve is better than attacking, but some units it just rates too high. Never ever auto resolve against their darned elephants, and if you auto resolve against dismounted knights and their ilk expect to pay a heavy price.

I once attacked Jerusalem with two or three stacks and auto resolved. They didn’t seem to have any full units there and only about a half stack at that, but what they did have were a couple of elephants. I had the right men for the job and should have been a walk in the park. Instead I lost three generals and most of my troops. I took like 2000 casualties to those two elephants that I hardly noticed when I attacked…and of course all the javelin throwers were skirmishers so in the auto resolve they counted for almost nothing.

It is some what the same with armored swordsmen. It doesn’t seem to matter that you have 10 crossbowmen and some good cavalry, they are going to cost you disproportionate casualties.

I expect that Empire will be no different than the other TW games in that regard…there will be some units that you just should not auto resolve against.

[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.

[PBI]

I hate autoresolve with a burning passion. But i'll be damned if it isn't much much better at taking cities than I am. Taking a huge city with cannon towers and a few hundred archers as defense? No problem! We'll do it and only lose one man!

I would love to know how the A.I thinks that is possible. Because I've yet to be able to do it. It can even take cities when 99% of its army consists of cavalry, and the rest in one unit of peasants with a ladder.

Hmph, don't try this on Stainless Steel. Basically, anything less than overwhelming odds in your favour, and an autoresolved assault which looks good on paper is likely to end in "Crushing Defeat".

But I would certainly like for autoresolve in Empire to be a bit smarter than it is at present. At the moment it seems to place too much emphasis on bare stats and not enough on factors like range and mobility, hence why units like horse archers and artillery are so weak in autoresolve.

It would also be nice if I could give the "autoresolve commander" at least some rudimentary instructions, like "in this routine field battle against a much weaker enemy, do not send my only artillery crew to get slaughtered, since I can't replace them and will need them for the next siege. Send in the expendable heavy infantry first."

In fact, something after the fashion of the promised strategic priorities for the battle AI might be good; so you could direct whether to inflict a few losses as a show of resistance and withdraw, or fight to the last man.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

So I have to wait 1 month so they can add something I do not have interest for, nor have time for?



Hontestly, could be good idea and bring up the MP community. But we said that about RTW and M2TW, and look how they turned out....

I think many people will come around, since this, after all, is what a lot of people wanted.

[Martok]

I think many people will come around, since this, after all, is what a lot of people wanted.

Indeed. I'll probably be one of them.

My old roommate (who's also a TW fan) is already teasing me that his Grande Armée is going to beat my Redcoats into the dirt. Of course, he's gravely mistaken.

[Polemists]

I think CA understands and most players will find that the main attraction as Martok stated will be friend v friend. So you can settle that score about who's the better general you've had since shogun

Random players against each other always presents challenges. Do you put time limits on turns? Time limits in battles? Because in the end if there is not some way to force Player B to end turn, battle, etc, the turn will just never end.

Friend against Friend is easier because you can just harass them over chat to hurry up

[Megas Methuselah]

Indeed. I'll probably be one of them.

My old roommate (who's also a TW fan) is already teasing me that his Grande Armée is going to beat my Redcoats into the dirt. Of course, he's gravely mistaken.

Yeah, he's gravely mistaken. My Mohawk warbands will have overrun you first!


Of course, the one bad thing about this is players who are spoil sports and quit too easily. They'll hate being vassals, minor powers, or giving up their colonies and trying to claw their way back to the top, so they'll leave. ArgH!

[Wishazu]

I`ll only ever be intending to play a 1v1 campaign with my brother, father and maybe a few people from here. Against my brother will always be a bitter fight to the very end.

[ETWUnofficial]

I'm feeling pretty positive about the delay. On the one hand, yes, it could mean that CA are in a complete mess and have bitten off way more than they can chew, but on the other I think it can be looked at as quite promising.

I don't think we need to be worry so much about bugs from the previous games, and I would be surprised if the multiplayer feature is going to be tacked on in this one swift extra month (it's the shortest month of the year, people!) or so.

I might write a blog about this actually, it's really quite an interesting topic.

[Sir Beane]

I'm feeling pretty positive about the delay. On the one hand, yes, it could mean that CA are in a complete mess and have bitten off way more than they can chew, but on the other I think it can be looked at as quite promising.

I don't think we need to be worry so much about bugs from the previous games, and I would be surprised if the multiplayer feature is going to be tacked on in this one swift extra month (it's the shortest month of the year, people!) or so.

I might write a blog about this actually, it's really quite an interesting topic.

It's nice to see someone else who is positive about the delay. I feared I was in a minority. I to believe that this delay is probably a good thing and nothing to worry about.

On a side note, nice fansite! It's very professional, informative and easy to navigate. Good job!

Lastly, welcome to the Org!

[ETWUnofficial]

It's nice to see someone else who is positive about the delay. I feared I was in a minority. I to believe that this delay is probably a good thing and nothing to worry about.

On a side note, nice fansite! It's very professional, informative and easy to navigate. Good job!

Lastly, welcome to the Org!

Ah, thanks Sir Beane

I did write a blog about it in the end, it's here if anyone wants to check it out: http://www.empire-total-war.org/2009...-to-those-who/

I can't wait to find out how this all pans out - do they release in March, or delay further? Will it be full of bugs or will it melt all of our faces in sheer awesomeness?

Personally, as long as it is face meltingly awesome, I don't mind how long it takes them. Long live CA!

[Ishmael]

Good or bad? Awesome! I want one game to last for months. This shouldnt require both players online at the same time. The game running constantly one month is not an option. What they need to do is to let the player install a puny software that sleeps until the other player is done doing his turn. Then, if the other player isnt currently playing, the ending of a turn will notify this puny software which then alerts you. Sort of like an email. "Its your turn"-message, even if you are not playing the game.
This way you could have lots of different on going matches with several players, and the tiny puny small software will alert you when its your turn and in which save it is in your turn. Possibly launch the game just by clicking on the "alert"-thingy.

I actually quite like this idea-i do something similar with chess! It would, as Pinxit said, let you have a few games going at once if you wanted, and you wouldn't have to co-ordinate times. The only problem would be the battles, but maybe you could just wait until the other person is on or autoresolve (unlike many TW players, i dont believe autoresolving is a heinous crime punishable by death)

On a different note, do you think it would be possible to make another human a protectorate? If so, my friends should look forward to a slow and humiliating crushing of their independence *evil laugh*

[Pinxit]

I actually quite like this idea-i do something similar with chess! It would, as Pinxit said, let you have a few games going at once if you wanted, and you wouldn't have to co-ordinate times. The only problem would be the battles, but maybe you could just wait until the other person is on or autoresolve (unlike many TW players, i dont believe autoresolving is a heinous crime punishable by death)

On a different note, do you think it would be possible to make another human a protectorate? If so, my friends should look forward to a slow and humiliating crushing of their independence *evil laugh*

Battles would not be a problem. The puny software I told you about should be able to display if some of the people you are currently playing is in "waiting" mode. Or somehting similiar. If both players are in "waiting" mode the software would alert both players that the battle is ready to be played.

[Polemists]

Yes....that is a good idea....another good idea....would be for CA to gives us a demo right about.......now........now?.....now? *looks around*.....okay soon would be good.

[geala]

In a German magazin (PC Games) nowadays there is an article about E:TW, they sent 4 normal players to test the game. The results are interesting but probably not new and known (manually loading of ship cannons, clumsy movement, very weak cavalry and something like this). The information in the article is of course weeks old. But the article gives 6th of March as release date and says that CA did not confirm a multiplayer campaign. I'm not very interested in a multiplayer campaign but after the article I question myself how sure it is that it is in the game.

[Martok]

Well given that it's been confirmed on the official website -- indeed, including an MP campaign is one of the reasons CA delayed the game in the first place -- I think we can safely say it will be in.

[Fisherking]

In a German magazin (PC Games) nowadays there is an article about E:TW, they sent 4 normal players to test the game. The results are interesting but probably not new and known (manually loading of ship cannons, clumsy movement, very weak cavalry and something like this). The information in the article is of course weeks old. But the article gives 6th of March as release date and says that CA did not confirm a multiplayer campaign. I'm not very interested in a multiplayer campaign but after the article I question myself how sure it is that it is in the game.

Germans being German, when CA announced that they were delaying the game until march, the German Official Site put up 6 March.

It is the only site that lists it so, and I have checked them all, but I attributed it to the German character and desire for efficiency and precision.

However, I can’t say that I share their optimism.

It is an English Company we are talking about after all.

It is simply a matter of cultural differences!