Total War Online: A dream come true?

**Akeichi Mitsuhide** · 10-22-2007, 16:14

Its an idea.

I got a better one. Read.

Same as the above, but instead of controlling an faction on a gigantic map u could make the map even more gigantic and for example in Holland u can play as Holland, Friesland, Utrecht, Gelre and Zeeland while in Germany u can play as any one of the provinces in there, both of those examples controlled by yourself with your own faction name and banner. I think is better in terms of the amount of players who actually gonna play this.

Which brings me to another idea. What if this "Total War Online" would be an game on its own crossing diffrent era's of history, like on one server you play in the Ancient Age(romans, greeks and carthaginians, u know the deal) while in another server you play in the Gunpowder Age with simple Hand Gonne's and very early matchlock Arquebusiers. It would be limited like this: Prehistoric Age - Englightenment Age(Napoleonic Age as you could call it).

In any case, the 2nd line of the 2nd idea is a must cuz it would make Empire:Total War or any other Total War game way to big.

**Pantsalot** · 11-02-2007, 23:58

Originally Posted by Akeichi Mitsuhide

Its an idea.

I got a better one. Read.

Same as the above, but instead of controlling an faction on a gigantic map u could make the map even more gigantic and for example in Holland u can play as Holland, Friesland, Utrecht, Gelre and Zeeland while in Germany u can play as any one of the provinces in there, both of those examples controlled by yourself with your own faction name and banner. I think is better in terms of the amount of players who actually gonna play this.

Which brings me to another idea. What if this "Total War Online" would be an game on its own crossing diffrent era's of history, like on one server you play in the Ancient Age(romans, greeks and carthaginians, u know the deal) while in another server you play in the Gunpowder Age with simple Hand Gonne's and very early matchlock Arquebusiers. It would be limited like this: Prehistoric Age - Englightenment Age(Napoleonic Age as you could call it).

In any case, the 2nd line of the 2nd idea is a must cuz it would make Empire:Total War or any other Total War game way to big.

That's asking too much, take up too much time & effort..

Though I think the existing idea is alright, the only thing that I'm worried
about is how much it will cost & how gd of a computer I would need.
I'd like to know what they do about noobs being attacked by a guy
who has already been on for example a month.. this has been a problem
with RTS MMO's. normally it's just that the server restarts in after a month
or 2 has passed, though some games just protect the noobs by using what
they call a shield which protects them from invasion normally for a week so
that they can get a hand of the game. Though I think that there should be
a sort of system like lvl 20's can attack lvl15+'s

& would like to know whether the person has to just restart if he loses or
can he never be conquered & just has to re-build or delete his kingdom after
a raid?

**Whacker** · 11-03-2007, 00:25

Hellenes, I gotta give you credit, you haven't stopped your personal crusade to try to persuade CA to go the MMO route.

However, I'm still w/the others. I hate MMOs, and refuse to pay subscriptions. There are plenty of examples that prove that MP games are NOT the way of the future, there's always a balance and a good market for both.

**hellenes** · 11-03-2007, 01:11

Originally Posted by Whacker

Hellenes, I gotta give you credit, you haven't stopped your personal crusade to try to persuade CA to go the MMO route.

However, I'm still w/the others. I hate MMOs, and refuse to pay subscriptions. There are plenty of examples that prove that MP games are NOT the way of the future, there's always a balance and a good market for both.

Sadly even if you dont agree with this there are 3 reasons overthrowing your and others position:

1st The PO (called for intelligence insulting reasons "AI") coding is FAAAAR behind any other techincal progress (like graphics) also its NOT cost effective.

2nd Deriving from above the dissapointment with the PO in EVERY TW release will continue in our lifetime and probably beyond...with all the moaning screaming and whining...

3rd The solution to the problem of subscipion fees is simple: a campaign map based game that doesnt require expensive badwidth servers to run...like Guild Wars...

Originally Posted by Pantsalot

That's asking too much, take up too much time & effort..

Though I think the existing idea is alright, the only thing that I'm worried
about is how much it will cost & how gd of a computer I would need.
I'd like to know what they do about noobs being attacked by a guy
who has already been on for example a month.. this has been a problem
with RTS MMO's. normally it's just that the server restarts in after a month
or 2 has passed, though some games just protect the noobs by using what
they call a shield which protects them from invasion normally for a week so
that they can get a hand of the game. Though I think that there should be
a sort of system like lvl 20's can attack lvl15+'s

& would like to know whether the person has to just restart if he loses or
can he never be conquered & just has to re-build or delete his kingdom after
a raid?

A noob that has only a castle can be allocated to a geographical place without heated conflicts or even better a standing army could be make VERY expensive to maintain thus even a old timer can find hard to field two full stacks of elites...
Also there is where alliances come into play plus it also boils down to balance the whole thing...
Actually if you read my OP the newebie can start with troops scalable to the situation in this area at the time he joins...

PS sadly my coding experience is 0 I had this idea of making a simple web flash campaignmap on M1TW quality which generates a historical battle after two armies clash and its played online using any TW game...

**Akeichi Mitsuhide** · 11-05-2007, 16:02

Me again, ive been thinking of something more appropiate for people who want to play this game(yet it doesnt exist....yet) but cant play 24/7 due to jobs, girlfriends, in one word: Life.

Simple. You are just one guy in the game being kinda like a soldier without army to fight in, u find a faction to join(your own choice) and u will gain ranks eventually. Now, in the end, people want to be the ruler of their own faction. Lets do it like a regular officer in Romance of the Three Kingdoms 10 on PS2: ur one guy serving your lord and performing orders given by him, fight whenever he wants you to and with more ranks, u can fight as a entire army.

About the army part. I think its best that in one massive army, you control just one unit(of the 2000 troops of your people u got like 20-60) and command that unit to victory. Also abit like Rot3K 10.

Share your thoughts !

**TinCow** · 11-07-2007, 22:36

I'd prefer a fully implemented multiplayer version of the Grand Campaign first. If they can't figure out how to let us play the different factions against each other without autoresolving and emailing saved games back and forth, I doubt they'll be able to do anything worthwhile with an MMO version.

**Pantsalot** · 11-15-2007, 18:43

Originally Posted by Whacker

There are plenty of examples that prove that MP games are NOT the way of the future, there's always a balance and a good market for both.

There r also examples of games to go for MMO. eg. World of Warcraft
(quickest selling game) Guild wars with the new sequal guild wars 2.
The highly anticipated Warhammer online (won't be out till next year..)
& this is also something new for CA, already having so many fans it would
be a big seller.

**Hellenic_Hoplite** · 11-17-2007, 17:33

MMO's are always the same way for me. I'll play like crazy for about 2 months than get burned out on it, I also don't like to deal with the annoying people. CA if you are reading this PLEASE PLEASE don't make the next total war game an MMO!

**Freedom Onanist** · 11-19-2007, 12:47

The suggestion that a human opponent in an MMO environment is more "inteligent" than the AI is not something that I have ever observed o a consisten t basis. In fact like Helleinc Hoplite human opponents are just annoying after a very short period.

Multiplayer is just a cop-out for game designers nowadays. All too often reviews gush over some multiplayer enabled game as if that is the natural evolutionary end point of PC gaming. As far as I can tell it just means scrimping on AI - after all it who needs it in a MMO game?

Happily, I can't see any realistic way of implementing a MMO campaign game in the TW series. The logistics of getting people you want to play with to play the game with you for long enough is remote beyond vanishing point.

Relief all round.

**hellenes** · 11-19-2007, 17:31

Originally Posted by Hellenic_Hoplite

MMO's are always the same way for me. I'll play like crazy for about 2 months than get burned out on it, I also don't like to deal with the annoying people. CA if you are reading this PLEASE PLEASE don't make the next total war game an MMO!

I dont want to state this but Ill be here with the dumb Empire's so called "AI" to laugh and tell to everyone: I told ya!!!
And the whining and crying will continue...

**Hellenic_Hoplite** · 11-22-2007, 17:47

Originally Posted by hellenes

I dont want to state this but Ill be here with the dumb Empire's so called "AI" to laugh and tell to everyone: I told ya!!!
And the whining and crying will continue...

like I said if it could be made into both a singleplayer and multiplayer game fine. I just hope they don't change everything around by making it into an mmo and lose their original fan base.

**Viking** · 11-29-2007, 12:34

Originally Posted by hellenes

I dont want to state this but Ill be here with the dumb Empire's so called "AI" to laugh and tell to everyone: I told ya!!!
And the whining and crying will continue...

What about just to try to make a wellfunctioning AI instead?