A multiplayer campaign.

[Wishazu]

You simply cant auto resolve the battles in any kind of mp campaign if you want people to actually play it. As someone has already said players want more than anything for their battles to actually mean something, and to be fought against another human opponent.

[Manstein]

You simply cant auto resolve the battles in any kind of mp campaign if you want people to actually play it. As someone has already said players want more than anything for their battles to actually mean something, and to be fought against another human opponent.

I know. How about players "transfer" their prime armies from the campaign map to fight online against another player who has also chosen his prime army from the campaign map and be able to give these armies names or something? That might provide a bit more feeling of achievement and such to the battles.

[Gregoshi]

Perhaps both armies have to exceed a certain number of men before the players can fight the battles. Otherwise, small armies or lopsided battles are just auto-resolved. I like the idea of naming your armies Manstein.

As for the feasability of a MP campaign, a save feature is a must. Also, I think the social dynamic will be different than that of fighting MP battles. While fighting complete strangers may make sense and part of the normal practice in MP battles, for a MP campaign, I think the players will need to know each other, either as friends or regular MP battle combatants. The MP campaign will be a much bigger time commitment and therefore you won't want to get involved with unknown players who may drop out the moment a campaign goes against them. Also, you will want to know that your are somewhat closely matched to your opponent(s) or else the campaign isn't fun for the poor players and lacks challenge for the better players. It is for these reasons I think a MP campaign will be more like meeting some friends for a few beers after work rather than going to a party to "socialize" like the current MP environment. That's the way I see it at least.

[Orda Khan]

I think you are right Gregoshi, this kind of approach would keep the multiplayer side of the campaign safe. I can not help thinking however, that the whole MP campaign idea is just too great to work. As you say, a save feature would be a must but I see a campaign against others lasting ages and consuming almost as much time as one's real life duties and that is bound to end up getting you in trouble

.........Orda

[LadyAnn]

There is a paradox in multiplayer campaign:

1. To make multiplayer games interesting, battles must be balanced, where it is only the skills played in battle that determine the outcome of it. Balanced in number of units, balanced in technology, balanced in money.

2. Master of strategy would stack the odds against your enemy before the battle start. You defend good spots, you attack with overwhelming force, you develop better economy so you could have larger armies than your opponent.

Also, MTW or RTW has the "sweetspot" for how large the army should be. For example, it is around 10k for MTW/VI, 8k for RTW (playing at large setting).

A third obstacle: the fun of multiplayer is not a series of 1x1. The 4x4 games are very exciting and should be incorporated into the campaign.

Thus am of opinion that multiplayer campaign that mimic the single player campaign (where each player sit around and wait for others to finish their "turn", like in Civ IV multiplayer for example) would not work and would be boring quickly. I believe we could set up forumbased campaigns which play out the diplomacy, economics and technology development, and troop movements. Then when armies collide, we meet on battlefield to resolve it.

It is easy to say I know... been toying with the idea 3 years back and have not done anything concrete. *hangs head in shame*

Annie

[BHCWarman88]

it is impossbile

where would you get the time at??you need like,at least 3 hours or so for a Online Campgain Game..

[Divinus Arma]

It is untenable.