IGN Multiplayer Q&A

**Terraforce** · 01-23-2009, 03:51

http://pc.ign.com/articles/947/947399p1.html

**Mailman653** · 01-23-2009, 04:48

From the quick read of it, two things.....one...in a screenshot one ship has the Jolly Roger, and two....seems like the Road to Independence campaign ends when the US gains its independence and then continues on to the general campaign which in theory would allow the US to be a playable faction; I think that might exclude the US as being a playable faction from the list that's been steadly coming out, at least thats how I understood it.

**Monk** · 01-23-2009, 05:12

There's lots of good and promising things in the interview, specifically about the MP campaign but even some things in regarding other freatures. My personal favs:

Originally Posted by On Government

As you mention, in Empire the ruling class and the people both have to be kept happy, and different factors influence the happiness of each class. There are many options open to the player.

....

The people also care about foreign policy. Attacking a hostile nation and winning great victories makes the people erupt with patriotic fervour. Attack and ally or continually lose battles, and your public won't be happy. Of course, you can always repress the population by posting troops in cities; it won't make the people happy, but it will quell unrest.

Finally. It's about time the people played a bigger role in the TW series. Currently they are just a number in a settlement. It seems in Empire, the loss of a war with a rival faction could very wel lead to riots or, worse yet, get your government overthrown! I like it.

Another interesting new twist is clamour for reform. Building universities and researching certain technologies makes the population aspire to modern democracy. In an absolute monarchy, clamour for reform is a growing problem and it can be quite a challenge to advance up the tech tree while avoiding revolutionary agitation. In a democracy (especially a Republic), this is less of a problem, but if the population is not happy you may find that at election time your ministers are voted out of office.

Now this is interesting stuff, it's the first I've gotten a chance to read about just how the government aspect works. The more advanced you become, the more freedoms your people will desire. As long as I can enjoy brutally supressing my population for a good while, i have no problem with this. Might even be fun to sort of put off upgrading technology to stave off this effect. Keep the people dumb so they don't know what they are missing out on!

Originally Posted by On consequences of unhappiness

The consequences depend: in the lower classes, you will see strikes, then riots before full-scale armed rebellion. The nobility issues letters of demand and will also launch armed rebellions if ignored. The army make up for each is different. Rebellions in some regions can result in the emergence of nations -- for example, Scotland or Greece.

In your home region (your capital), it's a different story with Revolution occurring if discontent boils over into revolt. The nobility will seek to install a new monarch, the people to establish a new Republic. Units in your armies may defect to join the rebels. The player can choose to fight as the incumbent government and stamp out the revolution, or choose to take control of the revolutionary armies tasked with taking the capital and overthrowing the old regime. A successful revolution forces a change in government so it could be that the player deliberately provokes a section of his population in order to bring about a desired change.

This is one of the things that made MTW so good. In MTW if you have a civil war, you have to choose a side just like all your generals are, I am glad to see that in ETW we can have the chance to lead the rebels to glorious victory over the old regime. I also like that revolts can trigger faction emergence.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 01-23-2009, 05:59

The "continuing development" actually makes me more hopeful than I might want to be.

**pevergreen** · 01-23-2009, 08:29

In addition, players will get the option to fight as the opposing AI army in any battle encountered by their opponent. So basically, the player can replace the AI in battle, meaning that players can be constantly fighting multiplayer battles that have an impact on the overall campaign. Want to buckle your opponent before they even reach your borders? This might just be the way to do it.

And suddenly taking over lightly defended cities became much, much harder.

Rebellions in some regions can result in the emergence of nations -- for example, Scotland or Greece.

Best. Game. Ever.

**Monk** · 01-23-2009, 09:11

Originally Posted by pevergreen

And suddenly taking over lightly defended cities became much, much harder.

Best. Game. Ever.

My thoughts exactly!

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

The "continuing development" actually makes me more hopeful than I might want to be.

Heh, I know what you mean. But at this phase i'm afraid it's hard not to be hopeful. Multiplayer campaign is something we've been hounding CA for years about but we were always told "It's too complicated" And it was.

I suspect that the move to Steam had a huge part to play in the MP campaign finally getting picked up. They mention Steam a number of times when talking about it, saying how easy it will be to find buddies and track games with people through the friends tabs, ect.

**Megas Methuselah** · 01-24-2009, 07:50

Oh, simmer down, fenir! Let's approach the situation as Methuselah would and take a look at the bright side of things: an active populace! YES!!!! REBELLION AND DISCONTENT, YES!!!!

**Polemists** · 01-24-2009, 08:10

by far the revoultion was the most interesting aspect.

Firstly I find it fascinating that rather then old, suddenly rebel this time the Nobels send letters and villagers go on strike. Finally at least you get some kind of symbol that things are in disrepair.

Then there's the fact that beyond that Nobles will have armed revolts, and commoners massed revoultion. So it's the old quality vs quanity idea.

Finally the idea that if it happens in your capital you can have a full scale civl war.

PLUS the fact that in certain areas new factions like greece and ireland form.

It makes me want to instigate my people into rebellion just to see the features

**Ignoramus** · 01-24-2009, 11:11

Originally Posted by Polemists

It makes me want to instigate my people into rebellion just to see the features

Hopefully we won't have to resort to that. Hopefully the AI will be so tough that will be furious when a civil war hits.

**Sir Beane** · 01-24-2009, 13:25

Woah there! I think you are jumping the gun a little bit fenir.

The article does not say that a Republic is better. It mentions that social and technological change happens faster in a Republic, but that they are unstable and the populace can be difficult to control.

I see it as a trade off. Monarchies offer stability, loyalty and staying power. Republics offer fancy new technologies quicker, but are difficult to keep full control of.

If anything I would say that Constitutional Monarchy will be the best government, since it is a compromise between both.

Also do what Methuselah said, look on the bright side of things! Atleast now we have many unique rebels, rebellions and civil war and even emergent faction! It's great!

**Polemists** · 01-24-2009, 14:59

If anything I would say that Constitutional Monarchy will be the best government, since it is a compromise between both.

Also do what Methuselah said, look on the bright side of things! Atleast now we have many unique rebels, rebellions and civil war and even emergent faction! It's great!

I'll remeber that Sir Beane when I instigate your peasants into a total revolt and strike when your nation is at your weakest

**peacemaker** · 01-26-2009, 08:00

dude. thats awesome. Your nation can rebel, and you can either choose to stamp out the rebellion or join the rebellion to break the old regime. Right now, I'm dying to play this. Don't let me down CA! Keep up the good work!