A camel thread is far more appropriateOriginally Posted by Mithrandir
A camel thread is far more appropriateOriginally Posted by Mithrandir
#Hillary4prism
BD:TW
Some piously affirm: "The truth is such and such. I know! I see!"
And hold that everything depends upon having the “right” religion.
But when one really knows, one has no need of religion. - Mahavyuha Sutra
Freedom necessarily involves risk. - Alan Watts
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
It still would be cool to play the campaign with friends though. If RTW had a multiplayer campaign function I know 4 people IRL who would be really into playing. Father, brother, and two friends. MP gaming amongst family and rl friends makes for some excellent dinner table and water cooler conversation and competition.
If CIV4 can be played Multiplayer, then so can M2TW in the campaign map.![]()
Isn't it funny how people trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell?
(Didn't read them all) The only way it cound work in a turn based system is to autocalc the battles and that would take the main feature away from the game.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by maestro
Because Civ4 is a different sytle of game m8.. No Actual Battles like MTW2 has or any other TW games in it..
Not sure, how this can be done... I realize, the campaign level could be made multi-player (aka Civ IV, where human players can join into a game and take over a faction controlled by AI; once the human player leaves, AI takes over again); but how about the real time battles? We could have a situation where players have to wait and wait for other players to resolve their battles...
That would take to much Time Slaists. It is just better off having the MP that we have now IMO..
Let's agree to just post constructive ideas on how this could work.
Abandon all hope.
For any MP games to work, there needs to be some sort of agreement among the players - a set of rules to which everyone agrees. Such as time limit for turns, for example. Considering the limitations of the AI in terms of diplomacy and overall strategy, I would love to test my skills against humans, who can think creatively and surprise me in many ways. I understand that such a campaign will take much longer than a single player campaign, but I am willing to limit myself to say 5 turns per night, or even week, if that means having a campaign with/against real people. Then the game will really be about outsmarting your enemies, while now it is to a large extent about exploiting the AI's weaknesses. If I find a few like-minded individuals over the internet, and we agree to play only a few turns per night, and to a certain amount of time per turn, then what is the problem, even if our MP campagn drags on for a year? As long as we enjoy it, I do not see a problem.
This thread should be about how we can make it work, not about trying to convince everyone that it CANNOT work.
The solution is for players whos factions are NOT engaged in a battle to have the option of playing as the enemy faction in battles against players whos factions ARE in a battle. In other words, if all the factions are AI except Germany and Carthage which are played by human players than when Carthage gets in a battle with Egypt (or any other faction) the player playing Germany gets to play as Egypt but only during the battle.Originally Posted by Slaists
You could work a multiplayer campaign by getting all players to play the same nation.
Every player takes the place of a high ranking noble within the chosen nation, one is chosen as 'King'. All players get 1 starting provence and any remaining are controled by the AI. The players compete against one another to become the next King (this is judged on wealth of lands, influence, size of military, happyness of people and technology). The Nobles can use a number of things to cut the Kings reign short, Assasination, Inquisitions, Civil War etc.
The King chooses the direction of the nation (where/when to attack, where armies are needed most for defence etc.) and can give orders to the Nobles. The Nobles can choose not to follow an order but this counts as treason and starts a Civil War. During a Civil War all Nobles choose sides and fight for the control of the country, the Civil War ends when one side has lost all its lands.
The King also controls Alliances and most other diplomatic treaties (Map Information, Millitary Access, Trade etc.) The only politics the Nobles get involved in is scheming amongst themselves to further their own position.
During war the control of conquered lands goes to the Noble/King/Faction that sent the largest force to the battle (thus increasing that players influence, wealth etc).
If a Noble (or the King) looses all of his lands, that player is out of the game.
The rest of the game is pretty much played out in the normal Total War way.
This could reduce the waiting time during battles because the idea is for all the players to attack the same place at the same time ~) The only waits would come during defence and during Civil War.
Dont think ive explained this too well, i'll make some edits later.
The game has been realese. The problem is the mind who have concept TOTAL WAR . They didn't do it for the campaign on line. To let every human to make his own strategic opption. IT is sad but it is true. I have spent 4 years and hope to see that CA will repair their mistake, but they didn't .
The will and want to continue with this engine , with no on line campaign.
This is my ideas for on line campaign: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72532
Is only matter of efforts and for admins to realise we can do it and can runnit under the guindence of on large Forum or Site for ON line Campaigns.
With every campaign startes , there can start another one and so on.
Good luck to all
Bookmarks