May I hasten to say that I in no way meant all maps should be mirrored or even fair. I might not have made myself quite clear about that. I do not however see why some maps should not be, and would also like the addition of these being clearly marked as such, ie, labeled "tournament map" or whatever tag comes to mind.

40 units seem too much to command IMHO. It sure works in single player where you can pause at will, but in multiplayer? I get a headache just thinking of controlling 40 units on a battlefield.

I even remember how I in Rome TW by choice usually would go for 12-14ish units in a 12,5k game, as microing those well worked better than having a full 20 units. So yeah, 20 seem to be the maximum units controllable (maybe even 16 like in Medieval TW).

Does anyone think 40 units would add to the depth of the game? I am unconvinced. Unit formation, grouping and pathfinding will have to be loads better than in previous games for that to work well. But then, maybe CA has made it work?


Lobby, communication and so on... I expect the game to meet the normal standard of modern games when it comes to this. Anything else would just be a disappointment.


About the cost of units, just as Tomisama said, costs should be separate for MP and SP, as this is a big issue that has wrecked CA's rep on the major scene of multiplaying in the past. It is hugely important that there will be no need of "player agreed on rules" limiting the choices, in order to balance the game. I hope we can all agree on this.

I would wish the game was in itself balanced enough so players can go wild picking armies. You want heavy artillery and almost no cavallery? Sure, you could make it work, and no opponent would complain about the fairness.

Very hard to make this work given the sheer amount of factions and units, but then you guys seem to have a lot of faith in CA's ability :p


And as a sidenote: I have yet to hear how a non-mirrored map can be 100% balanced.


As the gaming industry looks today, MP is a huge factor when people decide what games to buy. Previous multiplayer games have now started to have a singleplayer campaign added on (BF bad company comes to mind), whereas singleplayer games are equally expected to have a functioning multiplayer part. Most gamers just do not buy a game if not, the expectations of what a game delivers has became huge lately.


Straying off topic, MP is also hugely important for another reason, pirates. Many would just illegaly download SP games, CA has had huge problems with this in the past. Multiplaying is, however, way more tricky / impossible to hack in the same way, as you will need a MP account to play. Just another reason why a functioning MP is of major importance today.


Gregoshi, was that aimed at me? I do not believe I am CA bashing, but then I am no fanboy either, applauding like a Duracell Bunny. The game serie has had strong points and weak points, I prefer to be honest about the weak points in order to get them fixed. And I try very hard to be constructive, I hope you noticed.

I know I questioned CA's ability, but to bear in mind they have done some glaring misstakes in the past. Releasing the game with a passive AI in M2TW comes to mind (something half a hour of beta could have sorted). Other misstakes like that too, but let's not dwell on it.

So no, I do not 100% trust their competence.

With that said however, the idea for the game is utterly brilliant, and if they can take all the good stuff from the previous games and use the knowledge earned in this new game, it can easily become game of the year. But let me remain a bit sceptical untill we see what we get at release.

I for one keep my fingers crossed, oh, and we return to ancient Japan, a culture I absolutely love. Who knows, if they pull it of you might count me among the Duracell Bunnys :)