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