True multiplayer campaign map

[Cheetah]

Even if battles are auto-resolved, which they should be to keep a reasonable time frame, it would be a lot, lot more fun and a lot, lot more challenging. Practically the easiest way to "make" a good AI is to give the faction to human player.

Those who whish to fight tactical battles can do it in the current MP system. Of course, this would be completely independent from the MP campaign system (so basically there would be two MP foyers, one for campaign, one for tactical battles) but IMO most of the campaign battles are not fun to play out anyway, given the disparity in numbers.

[LadyAnn]

There are several attempts of the TW community to develop a multiplayer strategic game where factions owns provinces. Each turn, economic actions take place, build up of troops and buildings are ordered, troop movements ordered, result of battle resolved via online matches.

It would be similar to Diplomacy, except that the resolution of battle is based on multiplayer battle result.

However, there is a fundamental difficulty:
On the one hand, the online battle must be fair to be fun. Both side must be approximately equal in strength, otherwise, there is no fun playing them. On the other hand, it is of strategic importance to be able to attack the enemy with overwhelming force.

As reasons cited by others above, I wouldn't see MMORPH-like multiplayer as a better alternative. The turn-base nature of TW on strategic map is easier and nicer to work with.

Annie

[hellenes]

Turn based campaign makes 0 sense if its gonna be mp...here is an idea of mine that has alot probabilities to work:

"A Gigantic map...that has every little castle, dutchy, county that existed in Medieval times. 100 factions (Knights of Honor has as much) so any player will have the choice to choose any faction he likes.
A living world that is in REAL time and runs 24/7.

Whenever a player starts he makes an account and chooses a faction.
Now he can pick up an army from the available pool depending on the buildings his faction has at that time. Hes allocated with set amount of cash to start. After that he has many options: Either manage his castle/province or engage in diplomacy with the neighbours or or even start a war by attacking a nearby settlement or army.

Any action he is doing is represented as his character as a general and his army as his tool of destruction. His army grows or dwindles depending on his actions.
Now the most important factor (IMO) is what happens when the player is absent? Well his army simply loggs off the game! And his castle is manned by the "PO" garrison of a decent amount of archers/crossbows and militia OR if his faction has more than one players (mostly the popular factions like Byzantium or England) that player is notified to fight to defend the castle. The diplomacy in the case of multiple players that picked up the same faction is treated on a presence/rank level meaning that any negotiations will be engaged with the highest ranking player (meaning clan/faction leader and lower) present at that time OR on a pre set basis or "guidelines" that are given by the absent leader.

All players will be free enough to go wherever they want in real time on a scaled movement rate however with the appropriate consequences like a war declaration or annoyance...
There will be rebel armies in a quide abudant numbers with plenty of little catsles and provinces to expand to...
The characters themselves would aqcuire parameters same as the SP game based on the player's actions with the death of the character the player would either get the heir of that character (so he must make sure that his character gets married) or if there is no heir the player gets to fight a mini civil war and pickes the side, and if that side wins he gets a new character spwaning from the ranks....

Also the world that surrounds the player can be set in the battle engine of the TW games WITHOUT any boundaries and if the sizes of armies are too big for the server to cope with it, the strategic layer can be used in real time as |I said before.
On the unit sizes the player can pick up ANY size he wants the cost of the units will be based on per soldier capita....So if 100 spearmen cost 100 florins to buy and 50 florins to upkeep, 200 spearmen will cost 200 florins to buy and 100 florins to upkeep.
Speaking of which the castle that the player is allocated with generates a fixed amount of money that pays the upkeep cost of anything that the player has in his army.
If the castle of the player is lost his army turns into "bandits" and he will not pay any upkeep for them until he recovers his castle or takes the castle from another player. In the case that the player belongs to a bigger faction he can become a general in the service of the monarch but his army will have to be paid from the crown's coffins but will have the option to recruit soldiers from the crown's castles/cities at his expense (the player generates wealth through looting enemie territories/castles or from booty from the battles and has his personal money).

The crown itslef is an entity thats allocated to the faction/clan leader it recieves a "crown tax" from the other clan members engages in state level diplomacy and generally operates the "big picture" of the clan/faction.
Naval battles will be made controllable and the troops that are present on board will participate in any engagement. No agents will be present in the game since the diplomacy would be dealt through a chat and any other character would be simply part of an agreement (marriage would be agreed through a chat no need for a princess character)...

If at any later point a new player joins the game he will be allocated soldiers/castle etc scalable to the point that the game is at that time so there are no phaenomena like a newbe with peasants against a veteran with gothic troops.
Armour upgrades and soldiers will be tradable, like the player can "upgrade" his byzantine infantry to varangians by "disbanding" the infantry in the castle and having the worth of that unit back (again based on per soldier capita) and by purchasing a unit of varangians the same size (or bigger with extra cost) as the byzantine infantry by paying any difference...

Events will take place in the game at a chronological time through "upgrades" that the developers will release (like chronicles in La2) like the high era upgrade after a year or the mongol invasion patch....
Speaking of UNPLAYABLE factions the mongols or the astecs will be mainly the PvE element that will require HUGE alliances to be forged to deal with them.
The Pope will be a GM character in the game regulating the catholic factions and launching crusades. The orthodox factions will have the patriarch of costantinople as the spiritual leader and most importantly will play major role in the reunification of churchers attempts that will be voted by orthodox players (players that control orthodox factions).
The crusades will be deal in the sense of raids with huge alliances forged to march to the holy land..."

[Kitt]

Atm im playing a hotseat campaign with the mrs, we have two copies of most games except the totalwar series because there has never been a real lan campaign where we could play together and fight on the battle map together.

Id be happy if they could set up at least a TWO player lan campaign :)
The only thing missing from the current hotseat game ,
Simultaneous turns "like other turn based games" , battles involving two human players.
I never really understood why i could set up pre battles and play people online yet not have a lan campaign.
i mean from where the game is now, would it really be that hard to code?
i agree a 16player campaign would just be insane but im sure there are pple out there who could manage "a friend who plays", "a other half that plays" for a two player grandcampaign.

[TheLastPrivate]

There are other risk-style games that had pretty solid multiplayer, except all of them had autocalc battles, or turn-based battles (warlord, Heroes of might & magic, romance of 3 kingdoms..)

But I doubt they'd need to develop something new to this, it would be just like hotseat except you had the option of connecting to each other via gamespy and play out a real-time battle. I don't think that's a big addition, but then again CA has the tendency to overlook even the most basic neccessities that make or break a game at times.

Anyhow, autocalc would suck and not reveal the true genius commanders out there although some of the messed up mountain maps need fixing (and an option to view a certain grid in battle-map before engaging).

[Ferret]

I say get Europa Universalis III, the multiplayer on that rocks, the campaign is waaaaaay better than any total war game, the only downside is the battles are all autoresolved, even in single player, but the greatness of the campaign itself more than makes up for that.