Campaign MP

**MrNiceGuy** · 04-19-2003, 16:52

The current MP aspects of the game are very enjoyable, but I'd still like to see a way to play the campaign MP as well. Yes it would be very slow, an online bandwidth hog and a subject that would give fits even to the most dedicated programmer, however, for turn-based strategy fans this would be a big hit.

A dedicated server, as for current MP, is unfeasible. Could CA incorporate coding for hotseat and PBM games, which may prove easier to code than a LAN option.

Any ideas?

**ShadesPanther** · 04-19-2003, 18:33

Well it could be set up that its a constant thing hosted except it could be divided up into seperate games running at once. And for example a turn lasts a day and you add everything you want to do during that day.

**Shahed** · 04-20-2003, 01:51

Difficuly it may be but Yep It's needed.

It would be nice to have an ally who actually has a brain. Imagine being England, and ganging up on Frenchie with Spainish Ally, then going into battle HE HE

**Knight_Yellow** · 04-20-2003, 02:25

i hope for it but i dont demand it.

god have mercy on any man assigned to work on that 1.

**pilot** · 04-20-2003, 07:05

It would be great to play the campaign game with a human player(s). The single-player game only lets you offer a ceasfire or alliance., but with human players there would be many more diplomatic options, including non-aggression pacts and strategizing against a common enemy.

But it seems almost impossible. You would have to wait while the other player(s) takes his turn.

**MrNiceGuy** · 04-20-2003, 07:41

That's why I mentioned PBM and hotseat options. It would take less manpower and less gameplay modification, and to get a functional MP campaign going I'd give up an arm and a leg.

**Fragony** · 04-20-2003, 08:04

It sounds like fun, but they would have to strip the gameplay to much to get it to work IMO, some things just wouldn't work in MP. Call some friends, get some beer, and play RISK.

**Big King Sanctaphrax** · 04-20-2003, 22:24

PBM wouldn't work. How would you fight battles? Unless you auto-resolved every one, and that's boring.

**MrNiceGuy** · 04-21-2003, 01:58

Any way for MP to work without comprising too much would involve additional steps in turn resolution.

As it stands now turns are divided into 3 phases: player moves, computer moves and tactical battles. Player turn order would have to be introduced, other than that the phases wouldn't change much.

Although I do like risk

, especially the 2010 variant, my original reason for purchasing STW was the game's resemblence to the AH boardgame 'Shogun'. I'd like some input from CA as to their stance on campaign MP or links to old threads where this was discussed.

**ShadesWolf** · 04-21-2003, 09:31

For some ideas look at out forum over at OOOO

WE have a section on MP campaign that we are currently running

http://pub158.ezboard.com/bonerorderofomissions

**baz** · 04-21-2003, 10:46

personally i think this is a feature that CA will not be able to provide .. i hope they prove me wrong

**MrNiceGuy** · 04-21-2003, 13:20

Nice work Shades, looks like you've found a good working variant for now. I like the shots of the MTW tool from the wolves as well.

**LadyAnn** · 04-21-2003, 13:29

I think PBEM (Play By E-Mail) would work. Battle will resolve over MP, but the diplomacy and map could be done via email or a website.

However, the difficulties are to schedule players. It is quite difficult to schedule CWC, which requires to play only 4 games within 2 weeks or so.

Anyways, CA need not provide any special code so we could play campaign via email or website. Several people already are working on it (including myself) but I think progress is slow for various reasons.

Annie

**GilJaysmith** · 04-21-2003, 20:51

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (MrNiceGuy @ April 21 2003,00:58)]I'd like some input from CA as to their stance on campaign MP or links to old threads where this was discussed.

Search for multiplayer campaign or campaign multiplayer here or at the totalwar.com forums for previous discussions.

What it boils down to is:

- Shogun (and therefore Medieval, which uses the same core engine) wasn't designed for C-MP. There's never been enough time to redesign it for what has hitherto been perceived as a minor feature. C-MP was in fact supposed to go into Shogun but it was too challenging to debug it given the way the game was written at the time.

- This is not necessarily true of Rome, so if you want C-MP in Rome then you need to agitate for it - politely

- However, don't get your hopes up, as the market is still seen as comparatively small. If anyone can prove that the equivalent feature in another game has drastically increased its sales, that would make interesting reading.

Last time I asked for feedback about multiplayer modes in epic strategy games, I got exactly one response. So I'll try again: tell me about how you've played Civ3PTW, or Emperor, or MOO3, or EU2, or whatever. Prove to us that this feature sells games...

**Demon of Light** · 04-21-2003, 21:12

For myself, I always play these sorts of games with a desire to see how it would work if a human player opposed me. I would likely be more interested in buying Rome: Total War if it were multiplayer. In fact, I think that between my brother and myself, we would buy two copies so that we could play each other.

**Knight_Yellow** · 04-21-2003, 21:20

Gill i think i can safely say that i know if there was a C-MP then i would beat my freinds and family till they all got a copy and then i would camp outside my local game store and beat people up till they buy it too.

realy though in my opinion Mp is currently only small due to there being only deathmatches in MP, whilst great it gets boring after a while like quake 3 or UT 2003, but by adding a C-MP i reckon a lot more people would be playing it.

only example i can think of where MP wasnt the issue but has gone through the roof is GTA3, a small hardcore group modded the game so people can drive about ramming eachother (they aint got it to work outside the cars yet) but i read sumwhere that Rockstar are looking into a MP version of the GTA series since this mod has proven so syuccsesful.

**Kongamato** · 04-21-2003, 21:41

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ April 21 2003,14:51)]- This is not necessarily true of Rome, so if you want C-MP in Rome then you need to agitate for it - politely

Hopefully, a campaign MP can be created that will not feature build orders and rush plans. Already most RTS games suffer from a lack of MP tactics due to superior logistical formulas.

We should agitate - politely, as Gil said. I have an idea. We who are in favor of an MP campaign in RTW should put
I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

in their signature. It should be the most politely agitating thing we can possibly do.

Here is a guide to how I was able to change the size and color of the font.

Ikon Code

**Elwe** · 04-22-2003, 00:22

Something like this, you mean?

Cheers

**Knight_Yellow** · 04-22-2003, 00:32

woohooo new sig cuming up

**budlight** · 04-22-2003, 01:46

The only reason me an a fried on mine got Axis and Allies pc version of the game was so we could play each other online.

**Gregoshi** · 04-22-2003, 05:38

Gil, the only good reason I can think of for justifying a C-MP for RTW is that it would shut us up about wanting a C-MP.

Of course, then everyone would complain about the details you screwed up in implementing the C-MP.

So you can't win either way.

I can't think of anyone who's ever said they didn't want a C-MP, so the vast majority of the folks that hang out here (and .com I imagine) want a C-MP. However, the vast majority of these same people would buy RTW anyway, so the C-MP won't increase sales in this group of gamers.

Now that I've made two points and managed to neutralize both of them, my job here is done. I'm off My senses tell me there is someone in need of a

...nope, I was wrong about that too.

**Shahed** · 04-22-2003, 10:47

Gil thanks very much to you and your collegues from CA for your continued presence on these boards. I'm sure you all know how much we love your work, and appreciate the opportunity to converse with you

Unfortunately, before I can add constructively to this discussion, I have yet more questions than answers. I'd very much appreciate if you guys at CA would share your knowledge on the following.

1. The CA marketing team in a joint goal with programmers must have discussed the most important aspects of the game, with regards to the sales success of the title.

What were the findings of this project ?

2. What were the primary motivations for creating STW ?

3. What is the official CA marketing concept ?
Push or pull oriented ? i.e do you wish to supply features that are wanted, or make features that in turn will be wanted ?

4. The CA team must have researched the marketability of a C-MP feature and how much this would add in revenues. Would you be so kind as to share the findings with us ?

Perhaps Richie could shed some light on the more marketing oriented questions.
I appreciate that to some these questions may be detracting, but they are precisely to the point.

Wish you all success with RTW.
Whatever you do keep it profitable.

Thanks

**baz** · 04-22-2003, 11:01

changed my sig and will make a post in the jousting fields to gain support

**Nikodil** · 04-22-2003, 12:41

I see only one reason to do a C-MP: The AI is utterly stupid OK, as a programmer who has written my share of AI code, I admit, it's pretty clever and sofisticated (You've really done a good job there). But its gameplay can't be compared to a human. And the debug time for MP must have been insignificant compared to the AI code.

Simply put, when I slaugther noobs i want to know there's a human at the other end cursing me. Even if the AI would be so good it's unbeatable, you won't be able to make it understand the T and Y commands.

**Puzz3D** · 04-22-2003, 14:03

I played in a WE/MI multiplayer campaign with the Elmark Uglies which was a test to see how well it would work. We made our strategy moves by email, and then went online to play the battles. Elmark kept track of all the economics, buildings and armies manually, and he would update a map on a web site so we could see who owned each province after each turn. We could see info on all provinces we owned and adjacent provinces we could see into on private wed pages at the site. We didn't finish the campaign because MTW was released soon after we started, but we played enough turns to see that the diplomacy which was carried out via email between the 7 players was just amazing.

So this is one way to do a multiplayer campaign which would work with a server machine keeping track of the strategy moves in a turn based fashion as it is now in the SP campaign with each turn taking place over several days to allow for diplomatic negotiations. The battles would be played online pretty much as they are now once all players had made their move except that the army would have to upload from the player's MP campaign data, and the result of the battle would have to update that MP campaign data afterwards. You could have one player for each faction acting as king/emperor who makes the strategy moves, and other players could be involved as generals to play the battles. These generals could even turncoat during a battle. When you bring the human element to the diplomacy side of the game, it's a whole new experience just like playing a human in battle is nothing like playing the AI.

The pace of our test multiplayer campaign did not put undue time demands on anyone involved except for Elmark who was keeping track of the map and economics manually. The battles which I played took on immense importance in the context of the strategic game, and alliances and secret deals had to be re-evaluated after every turn. Loyalty was put to the test, and trust was a big issue as well. It was quite an experience even though we didn't get very far into the campaign since we were limited to one turn a week so that Elmark would have time to update all the strategic info. A multiplayer RTW campaign would be a chance to bring together strategy minded people and tactically minded people in the same game, and I don't think that's ever been done before in a computer game. It could have a snowball effect and get a huge number of people involved in playing. I think it's uncharted territory.

**Shahed** · 04-22-2003, 14:26

Very valid, good and well written post Puzz.

**Knight_Yellow** · 04-22-2003, 14:51

Yes excellent post.

**ErikJansen** · 04-22-2003, 15:52

I would love to see the MP Campaign come to life in Rome. All my gaming is online these days, and it would be a blast to try out a campaign modus with combined tactical/strategic elements.

Regards,