Total War Online: A dream come true?

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

thats exactly why I would not want an mmorts because I don't want to be worried about my cities getting attacked when Im not online and have to feel like I have to be playing 24/7. now if they could do it the way you play a campaign online like in the game star wars empire at war than I would be happy with it.

[fenir]

We have been talking about it for 6 years, off and on.

The idea is as much as what you have talked about, but that the faction Leaders cannot be a player, they would be AI or a MOD.
And people could become a "titled Lord" of a realm, and those people can add other people to command their armies and run affairs while the Principle is off line.
SO you have economic and military affairs, and depending upon how powerful you become, and how many flock to your flag, you can become an independent ruler, or a powerful vassel of a Lord.

Something many of us discussed years ago. And like this, crops up every now and again.

While the concept I think is a good one, it will be very hard to implement. Striking the balance between game play and functionality.

BUt at present, I believe it is still a pipe Dream.

I would like to give it a go, but I believe it would be a very complicated setup, and very technical, if done right.
Just my opinion.


sincerely


fenir

[MaddenKhan2]

I would love to see a online campaign! It would be So Intersting, but they could do it in certain ways so it is playable.

[Vuk]

Someone from CA, please wade in and stop this!
Please!

[Pantsalot]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[hellenes]

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.

I agree with you. And they could make it also for LAN games...or even if they could just add battles to the current MP hotseat...

[Gimli]

I have to agree with the "naysayers" (to my own sadness...) I just don't think that there is a plausible way to do an online world because you would have to stay online ALL the time, unless there was a way to start an empire say 50-60 turns into the game and just play with it from that point for a couple of hours. To clarify, people join a game that the computer has created that is ABOUT where it should be for a game that has been going for 50 turns (or less, depending on preference) and then it has a time limit that is set by the host. I don't think that is what they have planned or will plan, but that is one of two ways that I can think of to run it and it is by far the easier of the two. All in all, I don't think that it will go beyond the multiplayer online battle phase. * sigh *

[Viking]

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?

[hellenes]

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

That will cost 40mil euros and run on NASA supercomputers and STILL be 1/100th of the challenge of the human oponnent...

I have to agree with the "naysayers" (to my own sadness...) I just don't think that there is a plausible way to do an online world because you would have to stay online ALL the time, unless there was a way to start an empire say 50-60 turns into the game and just play with it from that point for a couple of hours. To clarify, people join a game that the computer has created that is ABOUT where it should be for a game that has been going for 50 turns (or less, depending on preference) and then it has a time limit that is set by the host. I don't think that is what they have planned or will plan, but that is one of two ways that I can think of to run it and it is by far the easier of the two. All in all, I don't think that it will go beyond the multiplayer online battle phase. * sigh *

Read my OP about what happens if a player is absent...

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

That will cost 40mil euros and run on NASA supercomputers and STILL be 1/100th of the challenge of the human oponnent...

I think you're joking but if you're not.....

Theres plenty of games with a well functioning AI, A few of them being: Imperial Glory, Starwars Empire at War, Gears of War and Thousands of others.

[Marius Dynamite]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
That will cost 40mil euros and run on NASA supercomputers and STILL be 1/100th of the challenge of the human oponnent...


I think you're joking but if you're not.....

Theres plenty of games with a well functioning AI, A few of them being: Imperial Glory, Starwars Empire at War, Gears of War and Thousands of others.

Gears of War AI is no where near as challenging as a human opponent, hence why I can complete campaigns easily but not win every game on multiplayer.


On topic: This Idea would not work because its simply more one way that the other. You are tired of playing football/soccer and want to play basketball, but your trying to play basketball on a football field, it will only work out if you find a basketball court.

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

Gears of War AI is no where near as challenging as a human opponent, hence why I can complete campaigns easily but not win every game on multiplayer.


On topic: This Idea would not work because its simply more one way that the other. You are tired of playing football/soccer and want to play basketball, but your trying to play basketball on a football field, it will only work out if you find a basketball court.

alright I do admit GoW AI is not as challenging as a human although they do try to perform basic flanking moves and other things. the ironic thing is it seems the battle AI in M2TW is worse than it was in the original MTW.

[S.Selim_1]

i gotta say..it is impossible and it doesn't make sense at all...but what can make sense is an MMORPG..Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game...now this is possible and fun too...think about warcraft and how it's new online game succeded..they started out as an impressive strategy game and also made a successful MMO game

Personally i hate MMOGs coz most of them are science fiction and fantasies..BUT with a real historical MMOG like the total war series..it would somehow workout (if u don't think too much about it :D)..and if so..i would recommend a game like this to set in the empire total war era......plzzz

[Viking]

With an MMORPG you'd have clans and monthly fees; it wouldn't be Total War anymore, and I for one certainly wouldn't buy it. There might perhaps be a few decades left till the AI becomes smarter than the human opponent...but the AI doesn't have to beat you in order to be a worthy opponent.

Bah, TW singleplayer campaigns all the way.

[S.Selim_1]

With an MMORPG you'd have clans and monthly fees; it wouldn't be Total War anymore, and I for one certainly wouldn't buy it. There might perhaps be a few decades left till the AI becomes smarter than the human opponent...but the AI doesn't have to beat you in order to be a worthy opponent.

Bah, TW singleplayer campaigns all the way.

Games genres is totaly a matter of taste..some people like to play Strategy games..others like to play MMO games..trying something new wouldn't hurt..i don't know about clans and monthly fees (don't know what that means) but i know warcraft did workout (making a new game genre) and even it's online game was more successful than it's strategy one. tell u te truth i never played a MMORPG but it wouldn't hurt to try

[Viking]

Games genres is totaly a matter of taste..some people like to play Strategy games..others like to play MMO games..trying something new wouldn't hurt..i don't know about clans and monthly fees (don't know what that means) but i know warcraft did workout (making a new game genre) and even it's online game was more successful than it's strategy one. tell u te truth i never played a MMORPG but it wouldn't hurt to try

Well to tell you the truth, I have played MMORPGS for months.
Guild Wars do not have a monthly fee, but most MMORPGs like WoW got. Haf of the WoW success comes from addiction.

[S.Selim_1]

Well to tell you the truth, I have played MMORPGS for months.
Guild Wars do not have a monthly fee, but most MMORPGs like WoW got. Haf of the WoW success comes from addiction.

yeah i hear these games have tons of addiction problems..anyway..i just thought total war would have more and more fans if they went to this kind of games..but i am pretty sure the next work of CA will be an expansion for ETW..don't believe the source that say the next TW will be online

[Elmar Bijlsma]

As stated many, many times before, an online version of Total War simply wouldn't work. You either would have to be able to be online 24/7 to defend your empire or wait extraordinary amounts of time waiting for everyone else's turns to come in. Travian for example, requires insane amounts of planning once you get out of the starting positions. I just don't see how it can be done well without frustrating the players. Then again, I'm not a games designer. Who know what clever designs they might be planning.

But a more traditional setup like World of Warcraft where instead of doing quests with a single character I command a general and a small army... hell yeah! I could see that work. Instead of a +1 damage two hander or such as rewards for doing quests you could acquire more troops, armour and weapons upgrades, extra arrows for your archers, etc, etc. I would dig that. I would dig that a lot.

[hellenes]

As stated many, many times before, an online version of Total War simply wouldn't work. You either would have to be able to be online 24/7 to defend your empire or wait extraordinary amounts of time waiting for everyone else's turns to come in. Travian for example, requires insane amounts of planning once you get out of the starting positions. I just don't see how it can be done well without frustrating the players. Then again, I'm not a games designer. Who know what clever designs they might be planning.

But a more traditional setup like World of Warcraft where instead of doing quests with a single character I command a general and a small army... hell yeah! I could see that work. Instead of a +1 damage two hander or such as rewards for doing quests you could acquire more troops, armour and weapons upgrades, extra arrows for your archers, etc, etc. I would dig that. I would dig that a lot.

Read my OP...

[Denali]

Total War Online: A dream come true?

yes

[x-dANGEr]

Dreams never come true, not this time at least.