Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
All I know is that in MP bridge battles suck and only noobs play them It never ceases to amaze me how many of you have never tried MP. It blows sp away and is the reason VI is the best war game in the world.
I am of the opposite opinion.

MP imo is COMPLETELY unrealistic and unsatisfying.

Unless some *agreement* is had before hand, NOBODY comes with a ***Balanced*** army. This goes all the way back to STW, when people started overemphasizing Monks. Armies half full of MONKS!!! Then there was the all Cav armies. Then the search for and requisite TOTALLY **Flat** maps!! Oh, and Archers were virtually absent. It was just so ridiculous.

Completely negating ALL the *little* things that make up TW.

What was the point in that? I gave up on MP at this point.

Finally, from what I've read, Arquibesrs (sp?) rule.

I just don't get it. We know that no game is real, but Total war is about effecting realty as best can be done. CA did a marvelous job. Then you go play MP and all reality is suspened!

TRUE Generalship is not taking the field with *some* effected PERFECT army, as in MP, but rather mustering whatever is available, consequent to the results of previous battles; and the present battle having effect upon the results of future battles. All limited by the vagaries in the capability to war, economics, logistics, etc.

For me THIS is the essence of TW, and is wholly lacking in MP.

As one Dev alluded as the desire of many, Campaign MP is the Holly Grail. Perhaps one day....

JMO

TS