Multiplayer Campaign Thread

[Slaists]

So, here are my observations from playing a few (too many) hours last night. Overall, it was a very enjoyable experience once I was lucky to find a serious player with a stable internet connection and a PC that allowed for the campaign game not to crash every other minute. OK, now onto more detailed observations.

First

The feature that allows the player to control the AI side in battles is quite ingenious in my opinion. I applaud CA for it! Wasn't utterly dumb battle AI one of the biggest SP campaign complaints? Now, you can have a human trying to stop your expansion in every campaign battle.

I was lucky enough to have a decent human opponent in a 20 campaign turn session (the game did not crash once during those 20 turns). Let me tell you, I learned quickly to think twice before sending sub-par armies against the AI. Even town's folk garrisons can be quite deadly when controlled by a human and place correctly.

In situations when in a straight human-AI battle, the human side would suffer 1:10 casualties at worst, we (on both sides) routinely had close to 1:1 casualties when the AI side was controlled by one of us. So, the "control the AI" feature can greatly enhance the difficulty (and enjoyment) of the campaign.

I saw some earlier comments complaining that now you always have to fight on the side of the AI. Actually it is not so. It depends how the game host sets the game options at the start. There are three options relating to this aspect:

1. Fight the battle if the player choices differ
2. Autoresolve the battle if the player choices differ
3. [a separate checkbox] Allow player control of the AI side in battles

My preferred settings would be:

[check] Autoresolve the battle if the player choices differ
[check] Allow player control of the AI side in battles

I find this setting to be the most flexible one. Both players have to select the option "fight" for the game to allow the AI side be controlled by a player. If a player does not feel like controlling a foregone conclusion battle, he just has to select "autoresolve" before the battle and the outcome will be decided by the game engine. Easy...

I feel, the other option, "Fight the battle if the player choices differ", is too limited. I'd even say, a host that elects that option is being cruel on his opponent. If this option selected, there is no way to avoid going into every single battle and controlling the AI.

Likewise, the option of leaving unchecked the option "Allow player control of the AI side in battles" is limited since it would force all player versus AI battles to be autoresolved, missing out on potential (and diverse) enjoyment.

I have also heard some folks here suggest that "observing" while a player fights against the AI should be an option. Sure, an option would be nice. However, I personally, would prefer to jump into the fray and try to do something with the AI's troops. At least, I could try to prevent the AI general from sitting right in front of their own cannons, while, just accidentally, the cannons would be facing a cliff, not the enemy...

Second

I have heard complaints about the strategy map timer. 2 minutes is too short, 5 minutes is too short/too long, etc. This timer, actually, is NOT set in stone. It is set by the game host and can be negotiated before entering the game. I find 10 minute setting to be the optimal choice as long as I have a reasonable (somebody I know) opponent. Most of the times, we'd be done with the turn in 2-3 minutes (and turn the game over to the opponent promptly), but there would be times when those extra minutes were needed to make more complex decisions or just, you know, a bathroom/kitchen break, or... we'd just get carried away talking to each other.

Note, while it's your opponent's turn you can scroll the map, examine your government composition, schedule damaged building repairs and troop replenishment. So, those things you should not waste time on during your own turn.

General observations

The game was quite stable (on the strategy map, in land and sea battles). It surely did not feel less stable than the SP campaign game. Given that I had one crash during the evening, the old, good "click on a fleet carrying troops" crash. This bug (fixed at some point), was reintroduced by the 1.5 patch and it is not specific to the MP beta. Once, during the evening, I lost my opponent because his connection was severed. I don't think, it was due to a MP platform bug though. Folks lose their wireless connection, folks pull a modem plug, etc...

Each player can choose their own difficulty settings in MP. This should be better explained by someone from the CA. What happens, for example, if a player chooses battle setting "easy" and the other player controls an AI army against such an "easy" player? Would the player controlled "AI army" get inferior stat alignment against the player? I suspect, the most fair setting for both players is "normal" in the MP.

Overall, good job, CA! I can see, I should set my alarm clock (for going-to-bed time) when loading the MP game up...

p.s. I have the same nick on Steam ;)