How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
In a hypothetical multiplayer EB campaign where every civilization was controlled by a human how would the campaign be fundamentally changed? How would actual human diplomatic relations play out? How would tactics change to face a much more intelligent threat? Would any civilization have a disproportionally unfair advantage and how would that effect the rest of the game? What civilization would you want to be and how would you play?
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Whoever's turn is last will have a huge disadvantage.Originally Posted by Catmand0
Also it's impossible to fight battles unless its an online thing and they can only attack when your also online
I would go casse, sweboz, Carthage or saka. Seleucids will get raped so hard and so will the Macedonians
Also there would have to be ground rules such as no private messaging the other players and only doing so through the game diplomats
Last edited by seleucid empire; 10-11-2012 at 14:53.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
It depends a lot on the people that play it, particularly whether they know one another, how much they like to role-play, and how well their skill-level is matched.
If the answer to all these is no, I expect a very competitive and "hostile" game, where the weaker factions will be wiped out quickly. If the answer to all these is yes, diplomacy will be more important (and more effective) and there is less incentive for cheesy tactics, so aggression is limited and weaker factions stand a better chance.
I agree that Macedon will be in trouble in either case, though.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
I imagine that mikra-asia would be a very interesting area in the first 150 turns. The gallic tribes would have to decide early on if they were going to unite or fight for supremacy. Rome would have to make an alliance with the sweboz to help keep the gauls in check. I could see an alliance between the saba and the seleucids to help deal with the egyptians.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
I really think Carthage wipes the floor with everybody. They can invade Italy by sea quickly and sack Rome and/or Capua to stunt Rome's growth. The Lusos would only be able to contest their Iberian holdings and would be hard pressed to kick Carthage out of two towns when they only start with one. Their only threat by sea would be Rome early on and the Carthaginian navy starts much stronger than any other faction, and it takes way too long for the Ptollies to march overland to Carthage. Their priority targets would be Syria and Greece instead and of course the Seleucids are a powerful foe to leave at your back while you marched west. Carthage also gets fantastic regionals. Besides the amazing Spaniards, they get Neitos and Brihentin in Gaul and Samnites in Italy.
What would be really interesting to see play out would be how the AS would fare. A wily Seleukid player could in effect cow some of the single province nearby factions into submission with a nearby army and demand some money to go away before they laid siege to those towns. Remember, Pontus, Hayasdan, Baktria, and to a lesser degree the Pahlava can all be wiped out by a Seleukid player within a few turns if he were to move quickly enough. Also, its one thing to take a city against the AI in a blitz. Its another to take a town from even a semi-competent human player. Protracted sieges would be the name of the game.
From Frontline for fixing siege towers of death
x30 From mikepettytw for showing how to edit in game text.
From Brennus for wit.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Seiges would certainly be more interesting.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
I cannot imagine Saba winning at all. They would lose all their battles to competent players
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Saba would have to play an amazing diplomatic game but a good Saba player would certainly be the wild card that could swing the AS and Ptollie war.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
I've got a little idea on how to give every human player a chance to build up and get organised at the start of the game.
Make up a list of (fairly historically accurate) Eleutheroi target towns for every faction (happy to do this myself). Have a house rule that each player has to take all his Eleutheroi target towns first (unless one or more of those targets is taken by another faction first before he gets there) before he is allowed to attack a town from another faction.
A human player can fight battles in the open field against armies from other human factions at any time, but can't actually seige, assault or occupy any of their towns unless he's taken ALL his Eleutheroi targets first. (Might be an idea to make Taras, Pella and Asaak exceptions to the rule, they are the only places where a factional army starts the game in another faction's territory.)
Also, when the game starts, there are a number of strong Eleutheroi armies dotted around the map. (I can make a list of them.) Make a house rule that the players who have one of these Eleutheroi armies in their territory must destroy that army. They must do this before they are allowed to attack another human player.
This also applies to any big scripted Eleutheroi armies, commanded by an Eleutheroi FM (like Moskon's big army in Spain), that appear in your territory during the game - they must be treated as the priority, forcing the player to go on the defensive against other human players until the Eleutheroi army is destroyed.
This prevents the human players from just ignoring powerful Eleutheroi armies and cities, and blitzing each other right from the start in a chaotic free-for-all. It will also make the human players worry, because if they use up most of their troops against the Eleutheroi, it might make them vulnerable to a blitz from a neighbouring faction that achieves its own Eleutheroi target list first.
So you can blitz at the start, but (apart from the above named exceptions) you can only blitz the Eleutheroi, not each other.
Suggestion:
Here’s a list of what towns you must capture for each faction, before you can attack any other town. You can take them in any order.
Note: Some of the towns are on the list of more than one faction. You can take the target yourself, or you can make an agreement with someone else to let them take it first, but you may not attack any town belonging to another faction (unless it was yours at the start of the game and you are recovering it) until ALL the towns on your list are no longer in Eleutheroi hands.
Note: If you are attacked by another faction, you may defend yourself, and attack enemy armies in the field, and retake any towns that you have lost - but you may not attack any other enemy towns, that were not originally yours, until you have taken all the Eleutheroi ones on your list first (except those that are taken by another faction before you reach them.
Aedui: Avaricum, Dariortum, Lemonum, Patavium, Bratosporios.
Arveni: Aventicos, Tolosa, Burdigala, Avaricum, Lemonum.
Baktria: Kophen, Alexandropolis, Gava-Haomavarga.
Carthage: Garama, Kirtan, Siga, Lixus, Sala, Arse, Emporion, Messana, Syracuse.
Casse: Ictis, Ratae, Ynys-Mon, Attuaca, Emain-Macha, Ivertis (the whole of Britannia and Ireland, in other words).
Epirus: Pella (Macedonian, you can take it right away), Thermon, Dalminion. (Note: you can recover Taras if it is taken.)
Getai: Sarmiszegethusa, Kallatis, Naissos, Serdike, Tylis, Singidunum, Ak-Ink.
Hayasdan: Phraaspa, Ani-Kamah, Kotais, Mtskheta.
Koinon-Hellenon: Kydonia (on Krete), Thermon.
Lusotann: Sucum-Murgi, Tyde, Baikor, Pallantia, Vellika, Numantia.
Macedon: Thermon, Byzantion, Serdike, Tylis. (Note: you can recover Pella if it is taken.)
Pahlava: Asaak (Seleucid, you can take it right away), Gava-Mazskata.
Pontos: Sinope, Trapezous, Nikaia, Ankyra.
Ptolemoi: Ammonion, Kyrene, Augila, Meroe, Axum, Petra, Bostra, Kydonia (on Krete), Halikarnassos.
Roma: Taras (Epirote, you can take it right away), Rhegion, Bononia, Segesta, Massilia, Messana, Syracuse.
Sabyn: Tamane, Sabata, Carna, Ubar, Homna, Gerrha, Bostra, Petra.
Saka: Chach, Gava-Saka.
Sauromatae: Tanais, Gava-Yugra, Gelonus, Gava-Thissakata, Olbia, Chersonesos, Pantikapaione, Kabalaka, Kotais, Mtskheta.
Seleukia: Ankyra, Pergamon, Halikarnassos, Nikaia, Palmyra, Ani-Kamah, Phraaspa, Alexandropolis, Pura. (Note: you can recover Asaak if it is taken.)
Sweboz: Gawjam-Rugoz, Gawjam-Kimbrioz, Gawjam-Skandzawarjoz, Gawjam-Habukoz, Gawjam-Heruskoz, Arctaunon, Gawjam-Silengoz, Ascaucalis, Carrodunum, Gintaras-Ostan.
Last edited by Titus Marcellus Scato; 02-07-2013 at 08:26.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
There should be a house rule against blitzing full stop. It's too easy to launch long-distance raids, particularly over sea, to devastate lightly-garrisoned cities. Obviously, an undefended border province would be asking for it, but there's nothing to prevent cheesy tactics like marching through eleutheroi provinces or using a few boats. In reality, logistics made such attempts very difficult*, but in EB it's easy and devastatingly effective. It takes only a few turns to assault a city and raze all the buildings - and infrastructure is expensive and takes a long time to rebuild.
So my proposed rule would be that you can only invade neighbouring provinces, and that naval invasions are allowed only over short distances and when escorted by a sufficient number of ships. (But there would be no restriction on ferrying troops to allied cities, provided you have military access. That way, smaller factions can be used as beachhead by stronger ones.)
Are there other cheesy tactics that need to be checked?
(* It's true the Vikings did so successfully, but circumstances were rather different. For one thing, Europe was thoroughly disorganized and defences were primitive. For another, individual raids were often small and, though traumatizing, didn't take out an entire province. The major, long-term destruction came from the fact that these raids happened again and again and again. Then there was the superior design of the longship and the fact that logistics are substantially easier when the warriors are also the rowers, etc.)
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Good ideas, Ludens.
RE: "Marching through eleutheroi provinces or using a few boats"
How about a house rule that says you can march into an Eleutheroi province, but you can't march out (unless you retreat back into your own province) unless you take the Eleutheroi town first.
Same with amphibious landings in Eleutheroi provinces - your army can't leave that province until you take the Eleutheroi town first (unless your army retreats back to its fleet, and then the fleet retreats, over two turns, to a friendly port).
My own view on naval invasions and ferrying troops by sea is that armies can only be embarked in ports, not anywhere on the coastline - although they can land anywhere. No player's fleet should be allowed to both leave port and land troops in the same turn, no matter how short the distance involved - even if it's a tiny, tiny distance. The invasion fleet must stop in mid-ocean between 50% and 75% of the way to the target, and wait there until the player's next turn. This is to give any opposing fleets a chance to intercept - and it must happen this way even if no enemy fleets exist.
Last edited by Titus Marcellus Scato; 10-12-2012 at 18:00.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Those are good suggestions, but in an MP game it's best to keep the rules as simple as possible. That way there's less chance of mistakes and less scope for wrangling about what is and is not a legal move.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
I think that golden chevrons Horse Archers, will kill every moving creature :P
Pretty much like EBO, rules will be decided as it goes on: I hope we'll have a MP campaign in EBII!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
And much like IRL, those golden chevroned HA won't be able to do anything against a stone-walled city. :p
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Function is currently turned off to ease modding, but I think its a simple fix to turn back on.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Oh, they can graze in the fields and wait, there's no rush :D
Awesome!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
I strongly look forward to an EB MP Campaign. The turn times would be monstrous. It would require hours of free time, and there would have to be a limit on how long battles can be. This however makes a problem for Steppe factions and possiblely of Romans. Whenever I play as either, battles take a very long time. This also applies to a lesser extent the eastern factions in general.
None the less, those battles would be amazing.
I am a Nomad steppe Kha-khan and have been since my first Parthia campaign in vanilla some years ago.
Check out my Playtest of giving hoplite units the phalanx attribute!
Saka Late Cataphract "Bodyguard Cavalry" Fix (Thanks to Brave Brave Sir Robin)
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
How people think Casse would do? My guess is that under player control they would become a real superpower in the west after the Isles have been unified. Their economy just is so strong that they could easily afford some three medium-quality fullstacks and still have money to spare, while the sea would provide them with strong natural barrier against most invasions. As their most likely rivals would either likely have their hands full with other factions (Aedui, Arverni, Lusotann) or have a very weak economy (Sweboz), there wouldn't be much resistance against their expansion that couldn't be overcome by sheer numbers and money. Of course, if the mainland factions could combine their strenght against Casse situation would be much more evenly matched, although they would also have to deal with Rome and Carthage. So many diplomatic options...
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
It would be hard for the Casse to maintain a fleet against any of the mainland factions if certain houserules were instituted. Namely that ships in ports being blockaded cannot leave without beating back the blockaders. That being said, conservatively it takes about 20 years to gain all of the British Isles at which point you are raking in the money. The Gauls would beat each other bloody and the Sweboz aren't much good at naval invasions either so I think the Casse could come to dominate most of Northern Europe before whoever won the Carthage/Rome duel showed up.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
For those who haven't played MP games in M2, the 'who fights which battles?' question is answered by only allowing players to control their armies on their turn. This forces you to be more aggressive during your turn, and to position your armies and fortify your cities in a much more defensive manner towards the end of your turn.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
I'd be willing to play Casse historically and act as referee for the game. I'd play Casse like I do in single player campaign - turtle, remain at peace with the Eleutheroi as long as possible, focus on building up my home city. In my Casse SP campaign, it's 242 BCE, and I've yet to conquer a single town.How people think Casse would do? My guess is that under player control they would become a real superpower in the west after the Isles have been unified. Their economy just is so strong that they could easily afford some three medium-quality fullstacks and still have money to spare, while the sea would provide them with strong natural barrier against most invasions. As their most likely rivals would either likely have their hands full with other factions (Aedui, Arverni, Lusotann) or have a very weak economy (Sweboz), there wouldn't be much resistance against their expansion that couldn't be overcome by sheer numbers and money. Of course, if the mainland factions could combine their strenght against Casse situation would be much more evenly matched, although they would also have to deal with Rome and Carthage. So many diplomatic options...
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Yes, once the Casse unify the British Isles, they'll become the dominant economic power of the West. If the Casse player is skilled at diplomacy, he can probably acquire parts of Gaul as well without alienating his allies.
On the other hand, I think the Casse won't do as well in combat against other human players. Maybe an MP player will correct me on this; but the Casse lack heavy cavalry, and their heavy infantry is either unarmoured or elite (expensive) and small in number. Against the A.I. you can make due with lighter units, but against human players it's a whole different story.
The lack of cavalry can be corrected by conquering a Belgian province (Remi Mairepos), but it will take some time to get the necessary infrastructure and it forces the Casse to become involved on the mainland, thus risking war and loss of trade-income.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
We edited the Casse a bit for MP but the general idea remains. You use eagles and druids to keep your forces from breaking while you use fear units (chariots, druids, uridusios) to quickly break some weaker units and start chain routs. Casse battles are often among the shortest we have in MP. They do really well against the Romans oddly enough (since Romans don't kill quickly and usually rely on morale as well) while they do poorly against factions like the other Gauls, especially the Aedui (who can do almost everything the Casse can with heavier suits of armor).
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Another suggestion for an MP campaign would be to ditch the standard victory conditions. These are designed for playing against the A.I., so they may be too ambitious for an MP game. Also, they more or less require you to go to war with your neighbours at some point. That'll hurt diplomacy right from the start - knowing that, eventually, it will be you or them.
As an alternative, faction specific missions could be used (e.g. "reunite Alexander's Empire" for the Ptolemeans and Seleucids, "unite the Celts" for Casse, Aedui and Averni, etc.). Or you could ignore the victory-conditions entirely and just play until an agreed year.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
why would they play conservative in MP tho? wouldn't a player just rush the isles and then turtle up? A casse player can unite the british isles and ireland by 266 BC and then spend the next 10 years turtling up. So by 256 BC they will be very powerful and ready to mount an invasion of Gaul (and probably succeed)
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
The Casse only start with a small army and not too much in the way of infrastructure. Its easy to rush the last 4-5 towns but difficult to rush the first 2-3.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Difficult I guess, but not impossible. I do it every casse campaign. The three chariot units you start with can rout armies very quickly. So first turn I que units in the capital and send all my forces to the first town (ratae? I think it's called). They Sally at the end of the turn. Put your units of starting infantry in a very thin line. The garrison will swarm those and you bring your chariots around. It's amazing how fast they rout. Even midlander champs and Druids rout in seconds
I find it harder to rush the last 3 towns actually since by the time you get there, your starting army is pretty much gone and you have to wait a year to recruit some more infantry
Last edited by seleucid empire; 10-17-2012 at 13:48.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
Why are you discussing usage of faction units against human opponents? You can't play battles against huans in hotseat, and most hotseats I've seen use autocalc for all battles. Technically you could just spam a only Pezheratoi stack as AS and it would work great, as they are strong with autocalc. Horse archers lose much of their strenght that way.
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
True, but you can't do hotseat in EB1. The script can only place homeland/expansion markers for one faction, so the recruitment/MIC system won't work properly with multiple players. So it's all hypothetical anyway.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
Re: How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?
That is a big problem.
Would be nice if we had a workaround for it. Some sort of application to edit save game files, allowing you to load a save game into it, and change the player faction from the one in the file to your faction, with a simple drop-down menu. This would automatically replace all the homeland/expansion markers in the relevant file with the ones for the faction that you are playing. Then save the files to a savegame folder of your choice, ready to load and play.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks