Hotseat Mode

[Lusted]

Didz, you're clueless ... and lack imagination .. in fact you sound like one of these turned-based games are better than real time dinosaurs.

Well im one of those people who likes turn based more than real time as well. Im hardly a gaming dinosaur, i've been properly gaming since MOH:AA came out, so not really a dinosaur. I just prefer turn based campaigns, as apparently do CA judging by recent statements by MikeB at .com

[sapi]

Didz, rorarii, settle.

Oh, and an online, strategic version of M2TW would not be a TW game; it would be a medieval themed version of SupCom.

[Lusted]

And as posted by MikeB at .com:

Your other ideas -- along with new subjects for the next Total War -- have been discussed here several times, especially here. It's unlikely that we're going to switch from the "turn-based campaign plus real time battles" model that has served us rather well up to now, at least for the foreseeable future. One of the beauties of the TW strategy games is that they don't end up being click-fests: there's chance to think, consider courses of action and change your mind right up to the moment you press End Turn. A "huge" game such as you suggest isn't something that's likely to be commercially viable: just think of the amount of content that would have to be squeezed into the title, and you'll see what I mean.

http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic...TW2-OMG-D.html

So no real time based campaign in TW games yet.

[Didz]

Didz, you're clueless ... and lack imagination .. in fact you sound like one of these turned-based games are better than real time dinosaurs. If you think PBEM is the future then you'll be amazed at what will happen! Whether CA is part of that future is still to be determined.

No I'm just a realist rather than a blinkered sheep that has to follow a pointless fashion trend.

I play real time strategy games all the while, but it is not a suitable medium for a game like MTW2 which is long term and requires time to think during play. I'm curious what evidence or expereince you have that makes you think otherwise. I can point to such distasters and Lord of the Realm II, which ruined a brilliant stragety game by introducing real time play, Sid Meiers Gettysburg which almost worked but only if everyone involved emptied their bowels, took their phone off the hook, sent their wives and girlfriends on a weekend vacation with the milkman and stuck cork up their dogs arse before the game started. I think I managed to complete one game of Gettysburg in something like two years of play.

Just do the math and you'll realise how stupid the idea of playing MTW2 campaigns in real-time really is, even a short campaign would be a marathon which would never get completed in real time play.

Short Campaign (15 Factions/Players x 225 Turns) allowing 15 minutes per player turn = 843 hours (thats 35 days of continuous online game time)

Of course that would be less with fewer players but the whole point of a multi-player campaign is to have all the factions player controlled and 15 minutes is a ridiculously short time to allow each player to plan and execute a game turn, and designing a MP game that can't provide a full multiplayer option would be totally dumb.

The only way to reduce the 35 day commitment would be real time simultaneous movement but even then:

Short Campaign 225 turns x 15 minutes per turn = 2.3 days continuous on-line game play for 15 people.

Like I say, I am quite happy to see this as a option for idiots with no life and a commode in their computer room, but its not a practical option for most people interested in a long term multiplayer strategy game.

The other consequence of real-time campaign play is that inevitably you find the game becomes dominated by the artists of the 'Zerg Rush' whose only idea strategy is to generate masses of low level units and rush the map. Thus it ceases to become a strategy game and merely becomes a battle of competing click-fest techniques.

As far as I'm concerned PBEM is the only viable option and I would be disgusted if a company with CA's experience didn't realise that.

[rorarii]

Ok here's a few ideas ..

No I'm just a realist rather than a blinkered sheep that has to follow a pointless fashion trend.

I play real time strategy games all the while, but it is not a suitable medium for a game like MTW2 which is long term and requires time to think during play. I'm curious what evidence or expereince you have that makes you think otherwise. I can point to such distasters and Lord of the Realm II, which ruined a brilliant stragety game by introducing real time play, Sid Meiers Gettysburg which almost worked but only if everyone involved emptied their bowels, took their phone off the hook, sent their wives and girlfriends on a weekend vacation with the milkman and stuck cork up their dogs arse before the game started. I think I managed to complete one game of Gettysburg in something like two years of play..

LOL! yes, very intense aren't they .. makes one feel they're actually in war!!! That's one of the main points! - Realism! .. maybe not for the oldies?

If your not in tears and emotionally drained at seeing your empire destroyed or a battle lost, then you haven't been one with the game.

Just do the math and you'll realise how stupid the idea of playing MTW2 campaigns in real-time really is, even a short campaign would be a marathon which would never get completed in real time play.

Short Campaign (15 Factions/Players x 225 Turns) allowing 15 minutes per player turn = 843 hours (thats 35 days of continuous online game time)

Campaigns divided by turns or time is basically the same, you just have to wait in a turn based game.

You would play a realtime strategic game , say the Second Punic Wars, over a month, where the campaign would be played over a number of hours per day, pre-set at the beginning and agreed to by all players. Each nation would have a player for each general so each nation would have between 4-8 players. if a player couldn't be online at that time, another player would take over. Generals duties would be like in real life, command the armies or administor the provinces (depending on the government setup). Newbie generals might be assigned to admin a safe provience (for the time being) while the most advanced player might be a consul or king etc, ordering others what to do. No click feast, all commands are done through 'orders' (like Dr Peter Turcans - Napoleon)

Of course that would be less with fewer players but the whole point of a multi-player campaign is to have all the factions player controlled and 15 minutes is a ridiculously short time to allow each player to plan and execute a game turn, and designing a MP game that can't provide a full multiplayer option would be totally dumb.

The only way to reduce the 35 day commitment would be real time simultaneous movement but even then:

Short Campaign 225 turns x 15 minutes per turn = 2.3 days continuous on-line game play for 15 people.

oh Ye! of old age and imagination ..LOL!

Like I say, I am quite happy to see this as a option for idiots with no life and a commode in their computer room, but its not a practical option for most people interested in a long term multiplayer strategy game.

It won't be played without breaks! but real life doesn't happen in convenient time slots. if you want to take on the Legions of Rome, you should understand what will mean emotionally and physically. 2 hours per night - flatout, could a very intense and enjoyable experience. A test of generalship and command, of organisation and leadership. etc etc (all the sales splurge .. LOL!)

The other consequence of real-time campaign play is that inevitably you find the game becomes dominated by the artists of the 'Zerg Rush' whose only idea strategy is to generate masses of low level units and rush the map. Thus it ceases to become a strategy game and merely becomes a battle of competing click-fest techniques.

If you design the game correctly, historically accuarte, you should be able to obviosuly forsee loopholes or problems. Why didn't Ancient Rome send out masses of low-level units to rush italy? ... hmmmm, i can think of about 30 reasons why they didn't.

Very little clicking, players order other players verbally or by written orders. (you see this in many games today) Simple AI does basic stuff (unit moves etc) but the players are totally responsible for all strategic and tactical decisions. Preferably battles would have a number of commanders / generals (players) commanding groups of units (Eques / hastati / Princeps / Triarii / Velites etc with an overall Consul). In strategic mode, it's just a matter of zooming up and all these players are part of that army, while another player might be in Rome (another consul maybe, missing all the action but organising something else?)

As far as I'm concerned PBEM is the only viable option and I would be disgusted if a company with CA's experience didn't realise that.

My basic idea is REALISM, this whats' exciting .. and that's what Turn based games LACK!



R

[Didz]

LOL! yes, very intense aren't they .. makes one feel they're actually in war!!! That's one of the main points! - Realism! .. maybe not for the oldies?

No! they're unplayable and are nothing like war in that the timescales are ridiculously out of sync with the real time. Basically, they are little more than grand tactical games which do not allow for any real strategy at all beyond the learning of the correct sequence of clicks necessary to blitz your opponent.

All RTS's follow this same pattern, the key to success being no more challenging than learning the process needed to outwit the AI and gain maximum benefit from the development sequence. As such they are by necessity similistic in the level of strategic challenge presented because nothing complex is possible in the time available.

Lord of the Realm III is one of the worst examples, particularly as it ruined an excellent game, but even the games I enjoy playing like C&C generals basically follow the same formula just with different units and graphic's.

You would play a realtime strategic game , say the Second Punic Wars, over a month, where the campaign would be played over a number of hours per day, pre-set at the beginning and agreed to by all players. Each nation would have a player for each general so each nation would have between 4-8 players.

Anyone who has played in such a game, or managed an online gaming guild, will recognise how totally impractical that would be to organise and acheive. You are talking about marshalling the time and availability of somewhere in the region of 45 players over a period of several months. The simple influence of international time zones would make it impossible.

No click feast, all commands are done through 'orders' (like Dr Peter Turcans - Napoleon)

I've played several of Turcan's games and if I wanted to play one again I would do so, but MTW2 is not based on this sort of design and why would we want to to mimic Turcan's system which to be quite honest flopped big time, despite probably being more realistic.

oh Ye! of old age and imagination ..LOL!

Yes...well I think readers of this forum can form their own conclusions from this and your previous 'clueless dinosaur' comment.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that my expereince of computer gaming is limited to MTW2 and a few other similar games. Whereas, in fact I have been playing computer games since the first launch of the Commodore 64 and the subject and style of games I play varies considerably from first person shoot'em ups like World of Warcraft and Call of Duty 2 to RTS's like Dawn of War, Command and Conquer and Settlers.

Contrary to your rather blinked and dogmatic view turn based games are not old fashioned nor do they lack realism or excitment. They are merely a different format which allows a more indepth and complex handling of strategy, in that respect most turn based games are far closer to reality than any RTS's can ever hope to be, more importantly they allow for precisely the sort of player involvement that you seem to crave.

Unlike you, I've actually played in a large scale Napoleonic game in which all the generals were player controlled. I played Dmitry Sergeyevich Dokhturov in a refight of Napoleon's 1812 campaign, my character personally leading his division in a crutial bayonet charge on a French redoubt guarding the a vital river bridge over the Neimen and trapping two French Divisions on the wrong side of the river forcing them to surrender with their eagles. I also played Napoleon in the Eylau campaign commanding five player controlled Corps. Needless to say these were PBEM games and they were highly detailed strategic simulations taking years to complete.


To suggest that something like that could be acheived in accelerated real time is just laughable, and to suggest that the result would actually be realistic is utter nonesense.

My basic idea is REALISM, this whats' exciting .. and that's what Turn based games LACK!

Good for you..go back to Age of Empires or Cossacks2.

[Ulstan]

Real Time games are no more realistic than turn based games.

In fact, real time games to me are more likely to be simplified 'kiddie fodder', while turn based games are more likely to be able to capture the length and breadth of complexity needed to even halfway approach 'realism.' You can just fit so much more into a turn based game: all those interactions and options and choices put into a real time game would not be practical.

There's certainly a place for real time games, and I'm sure everyone has spent many happy hours playing C&C, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc, but I am not at all convinced that real time games are 'better' than turn based. They are certainly almost always less able to model realism.

In any case, the hybrid turn based but real time battles MTW has is perfect, and it would be an astonishing failure if it was shoehorned into a RTS all the time game.

Obviously, it would not be possible for two players to play battles against eac other in Hotseat mode but I had hoped it would have allowed all battles against the AI to be played.

This is what I hope as well. Then my brother and I could play and each have our own separate empire at opposite ends of the world and race to victory :D It would be such great fun.

[Didz]

There's certainly a place for real time games, and I'm sure everyone has spent many happy hours playing C&C, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc, but I am not at all convinced that real time games are 'better' than turn based. They are certainly almost always less able to model realism.

Exactly, there are times after a hard day int he office when you just want to come home and kill stuff. Thats when games like Command and Conquer or Dawn of War come into their own, work the process, build the super-units and massacre everyone. Games like World of Warcraft and Call of Duty are bit more stressful in that the opposition are normally good as you are but they do have the advantage of allowing team and social play so its possible merely to use them as an interactive social gathering. (Well not so much Call of Duty 2 as standing around talking is bound to get you shot)

I wouldn't class any game as age related, personally I play different games depending what mood I'm in. My son and I were actually having great fun at the weekend playing Doom and I occassionally like playing Warcraft 3 custom games like Airstrike and Massacre TD just for fun.

However, the Totalwar series is a pretty unique combination of indepth campaign strategy with real-time tactical battles and its an awesome combination which combinesthe depth of games like Civilisation with the visual appeal of Cossacks2 or AoE. In many respects its actually superior to tabletop wargaming.

Its only shortcoming has always been the lack of a multplayer capability for the campaigns and thats really the only reason it hasn't displaced all the old hex based games like the Battleground Series which still get used as campaign systems by serious wargamers.

[Razor1952]

We're somewhat off the the topic, but by and large I agree with Didz, but the discussion is interesting.

I myself started off playing aoe and KKNd and thought turn based games were silly, then came Caesar 3, Civ3/4, Totalwarseries, Stronghold, C&C series and Railroad tycoon, these all allowed a much better consideration of strategy.

But MTW2 is I think the first I game I have actually played where the imperatives of the game dictated my mooves(and allowed my free expression of a playing role). Rather than trying to win I found myself wondering what I as King whosoever would have done, extraordinary really.

As a contra however I sometimes play against my son and his mates in a james bond shoot'em up, (Playstation) Of course I'm hopeless and the boys make a beeline to rack up an easy kill before taking each other on again.Sigh!

[rorarii]

I'm not going to waste anymore of my time. I can see a plethora of assumptions you've made, that I didn't make! I could spend ages countering these assumptions, which I won't. All I will say is wait and watch. It's all down to game design.

If TW wants to compete it will need at least an online option.

And if you think all online gamers are - quote " ..with no lives and commode in their computer room .." then that speaks for itself.


R

[Foz]

If TW wants to compete it will need at least an online option.

On what do you base that? The fact that you want an online option? In case you haven't noticed, you do not equal everyone, nor does CA live or die on what you want. There will always be call for both single player games and multiplayer ones. The TW series just happens to have a huge following of primarily single-player gamers, or at least gamers that enjoy it as a single-player game. It has some multiplayer ones as well who are constantly trying to push their own agenda, but in general I don't hear huge outcries from the single player community begging for the game to be multiplayer (I'm not counting the currently multiplayer as real, because it's not what most people that want multiplayer really have in mind - they want campaign multi). I myself absolutely despise most online games that demand constant social interaction - one of the reasons I am often gaming is explicitly to avoid having to deal with other people for a while, and I especially abhor the general immaturity of many online gamers in both language and conduct. Nothing can ruin a great game as fast as another player if they decide to do so, and they all-too-frequently do in most online play communities I've played in. I do still play online games some in spite of that, but I will likewise continue to need good single player games to provide needed reprieves from the frequent grinding of Internet play. TW games fit that bill wonderfully, and frankly I too would be upset if CA took the series in a different direction, especially after showing such remarkable success and aptitude in the single-player realm. Just because something (in this case Internet multiplayer) is a popular craze doesn't mean that anything that doesn't conform is immediately inferior, and I applaud CA for focusing instead on what has always been the bread and butter of this series: the actual single player game. To do differently would draw focus and effort away from the best part of the series, in turn alienating many TW fans, and ultimately damaging the TW brand, possibly irreparably. I think it's been summed up best a thousand times before: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ...and TW games sure ain't broke.

[Magraev]

To me online gaming will never be interesting.

I have a 15 year old kid. He plays games on my pc all the time.

Sometimes he plays Counterstrike. When he does that he has earphones on to protect the rest of us from the noise. He stares intently at the screen and is very hard to reach for silly stuff like dinner or bedtime.

Sometimes he plays M2TW with me, last using the new hotseat mode, playing as allies. We sit and chat and discuss what to do. We even talk about stuff from RL! Sometimes we do less than bright things because they feel right.

No doubt he prefers CS, but I think M2TW enables a great quality time together that is otherwise hard to get.

EDIT: I got cut off before finishing - shouldn't be here and at work at the same time...
My point is that realtime online games demand your total attention, and that is not something I can give gaming anymore. The wife and kid demand my attention regularly, and I have to be able to come and go. Therefore M2TW is great for me.
I do play games online, like the empirebuilding "Travian" (try it, it's a lot of fun). But that is a different kind of game.

I would still love to fight the defensive battles though!!!

[Didz]

And if you think all online gamers are - quote " ..with no lives and commode in their computer room .." then that speaks for itself.

Never said that...what I said was that if you expect to be able to play a game like MTW2 online in real time you would need to have no life and a commode in your bedroom becuase it would require in excess of 35 days non-stop online play to complete.

I play World of Warcraft so I'm well aware of the commitments required for online team play in instance raids etc. Its never going to happen if the Totalwar series wants to keep its market niche, the only way it would work is if the game was changed to become like Age of Empires, Cossacks2 or Europa Universalis, in which case I wouldn't bother buying it.

The TW series just happens to have a huge following of primarily single-player gamers, or at least gamers that enjoy it as a single-player game.

Exactly, the recent poll confirmed that. There are plenty of game options for when you fancy the low strategy quick fix of a real time game I frequently play Dungeon Keeper 2 or Settlers when I just want a quick low brain effort game. MTW2 provides a more flexible option for those who like to immerse themselves in the subject matter without going into the full on cerebral commitment required by games like Hearts of Iron or Crown and Glory.

I myself absolutely despise most online games that demand constant social interaction - one of the reasons I am often gaming is explicitly to avoid having to deal with other people for a while, and I especially abhor the general immaturity of many online gamers in both language and conduct. Nothing can ruin a great game as fast as another player if they decide to do so, and they all-too-frequently do in most online play communities I've played in.

Griefers...the game within the game. Yep! you get them everywhere. Its the moment when you wish your PC had a 'fist in the face' button that would operate remotely through the other players screen. They are undoubtely the scum around the edge of the toilet bowl when it comes to online gaming and one can only wonder at what sort of person they must be in real life.

I applaud CA for focusing instead on what has always been the bread and butter of this series: the actual single player game. To do differently would draw focus and effort away from the best part of the series, in turn alienating many TW fans, and ultimately damaging the TW brand, possibly irreparably. I think it's been summed up best a thousand times before: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ...and TW games sure ain't broke.

Hear! Hear! nicely put Foz. Though I would still like some way of playing the campaign game against other human players, as PBEM or Hotseat. of course.

[~Isabella of Castile~]

could someone please tell me where to put this stuff in the preference file, I only want to play the Timurids.

[alex9337]

I posted this in another thread, but the Total War series of games, in my opinion, are the best. They combine turn-based strategy, requiring thought and planning (remember, chess may be the oldest and best turn-based war game that exists) with the element of (if desired, because you can auto-calc) RTS battles.

Can't beat that! Since being introduced to Rome: Total War in late 2005, I have rarely played anything else. Yes, from time to time I play against my son over a lan system and we have a rousing good time smashing each other playing Starcraft or whatnot, but those games only last about an hour.

For deep, long, strategic gaming, the Total War Series is the only way to go!

[_Tristan_]

Think of me as a dinosaur (see some above posts) but i've been playing computer games since getting my first Apple II in 1984... I've played all kind of games RPG (Ultima series, Wizardry, NWN,...), FPS (CoD, MoH,...), Flight Sims and so on...

At the same time, I played a lot of tabletop wargames (DBA, DBM, Warhammer Battle,...) with handfully painted figures and I had always been looking for the same experience on the PC...
My friends and I had also devised a campaign system (Diplomacy-based) betwwen the battles, not too dissimilar to the TW series system...

Then came the light and STW...
It brought the tabletop battles to my computer with the strategic twist my friends and I had added....

I spent long hours fighting for the Shogunate and my only regret was the impossibility to play against a fellow human, the AI being limited...

Now that the Hotseat mode is implemented, I can't wait for Ca or modders to give us the ability to even fight Human/Human battles or at least fight defensive Human/AI battles...

It will be an occasion to have a cool gathering of friends around the same interests, not just having a solitary pleasure in front of the screen...

So, Thx CA and make it happen, please...

[The Stranger]

whats this hotseat? is it a mod? can you really play onlne campaigns... hmm this makes m2tw a lot more interesting.

[Didz]

whats this hotseat? is it a mod? can you really play onlne campaigns... hmm this makes m2tw a lot more interesting.

Yes...At the moment it is possible to change a setting in the preference file which will effectively unlock any and all the factions so that you can play them yourself.

Its then possible for several players to choose to take the role of different factions and play against each other.

The only shortcoming at present is that this mode does not allow a player to command his own troops in defensive battles, and so most people using 'hotseat' mode have adopted a rule that all battles no matter who starts them will be resolved using the Auto button.

So, basically we're sort of halfway there as far as multiplayer gaming is concerned. What is lacking is a link between the campaign map and the multi-player battle system so that players can command their own armies. Something like the 'Thunder-at-Sea' system for Fighting Steel would probably be the best option. TAS just saves all the battle information to a file which can then be loaded into the battle engine so that the battle can be fought, and then saves the battle results into a file which is uploaded back into the main campaign engine afterwards.

[DisruptorX]

Its rather amusing to label turn based games as dinosaurs, when all real time strategy games, with very, very few exceptions (total war, which is a hybrid, and Black and White come to mind) are all ripoffs of 15 year old games like Dune II.

Seriously, Starcraft was fun back in 1998, but those types of games get boring fast, and have to be played multiplayer to be fun.

[The Stranger]

and you are trying to say?

[DisruptorX]

and you are trying to say?

Just responding the conversation at the top of the page.

Command and Conquer clones aren't the strategy genre.

[Heinrich VI]

i have experimented with the hotseat option a bit but like many others i miss the battles too much. a simple interface to play the campaign and the battles over lan would be perfect imo.

since "official" hotseat support was omitted from the 1.2 patch and moved to kingdoms i have high hopes for a tw multiplayer campaign premier. the only crucial aspect this otherwise outstanding series always lact. in fact my very first post at the .com and .org forums was about the possibility of multiplayer mp in future tw titles (and a little rant about the lack of it in mtw :P ).

any news about this part of the upcoming kingdoms expansion? anyone? lusted ;-) ?

[Swoosh So]

I have plans for a kingdoms hotseat campaign that includes the online battles

Info can be found here :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...60#post1642860

Going to get it running within a week or so of kingdoms being released, and will accept signups from long term community or long term members of the org.

[Heinrich VI]

woohoo!

i never knew you could play the campaign in mp AND fight the battles online with rtw. i tried the mp campaign script myd released for rtw 1.2 but it was autocalculate only.

your short mp aars sound very promising. this is exactly the kind of tw gaming i was hoping for! finally the series will show its true potential. im so tired of creaming the puny ai over and over again. looking forward to my first crushing defeat - havent played online tw since mtw:vi.

[Swoosh So]

Well there is some work involved, i cant simply take the exact battle on the camp map and transfer it online (we asked ca for battle output files to do this but so far zippo) Basically what we do is take the units from the campaign battle and put the exact units into an online battle, To transfer the results back to the campaign map we would look at the casualty page and calculate what units were left, then simply disband those units from the armies on the campaign map or use the kill_character command if a general died.

This system is fairly easy - say you had 300 archers in the battle and the unit sizes were 60, you lost 160 archers in the battle leaving 140, thats 2 full units left 2x60 leaving 20 over - we used a system that you lose the unit carried over if the strength is below 50% so the 20 left over is not 50% of 60 so you would have 2 units of archers left.

Its important of course that the campaign moves with full strength units only, and unless we mod the campaign (which is easy) we would not have mercenaries. Also its better if theres no ai factions or rebels as this will cause units to be understrength from time to time, again its easy to remove rebels from a campaign or you can simply make a rule that understrength units cannot be used untill theyre reinforced.

Basically we had to adhere to around 15 rules to get a perfect campaign running (or as perfect as we could get it) and both those aar's were written in 1 night so you can see the process moves fairly fast even when back in that day we had to use halt_ai commands and control faction blah to switch factions, the new hotseat mode will remove these tasks and automate them so it should be alot faster with just the casualties being admin duty.

All you need really is a strong rule set that takes into account the problems, i have one which ill publish when kingdoms comes out (ill need to modify it a little) but of course its possible for people to make their own rulesets for their own campaigns.

We went for a simple functional ruleset that involved as little admin as possible and it seemed to flow really well, of course if you wanted a more in depth campaign you could make a larger and more complex ruleset.

The positive thing is everything runs ingame with the exception of battle casualties.

[Heinrich VI]

maybe the fully implemented hotseat mode in kingdoms will be a pleasant surprise. players vs ai battles were already possible (except for defense) if this is fixed the only thing needed would be proper player vs player battles. i can only speculate if these will be left to autocalc again or if ca added a lan/online option.

remote desktop services could even transfer the pbm style turns into a true mp campaign. and with added lan battles over hamachi...

[Swoosh So]

It was already confirmed in pc gamer the battles were auto calc, so it seems we would still need a system to transfer the battles, each battle you play single player surely has a text file to set it up, what we asked from ca was for this text file so we could play the battle online and the result another text file to transfer the results back into the campaign. These files already must be in use as in single player the battle is played and the results put back into the campaign all we needed was that the armies were controlled by players.

[Heinrich VI]

did the pc gamer article say anything about player vs ai defensive battles?

i heard about the log files and iirc mtw put out logfiles after the battles.
but since they have not given us the log files so far i doubt this will change in kingdoms. unfortunately.

can the multiplayer battle scenarios be edited or can you create your own? this might be better although possibly much more work. it would allow the use of mercs and understrength units. if there is a way to alter the unit strength on the campaign map (cheats?) to reflect the outcome of the battle better.

last problem might be the small variety of mp maps.

oh ig ca would just give us a lan campaign option. :/

[Didz]

Deleted

[Swoosh So]

"did the pc gamer article say anything about player vs ai defensive battles?"

nope

"it would allow the use of mercs and understrength units. "

Mercs are easy you simply add them to that faction in the campaign text files. then you can choose merc units with your army online.

"last problem might be the small variety of mp maps. "

Dont worry about the maps with the coordinates of the battle you can call up the map even in multiplayer. This is how we created map packs with only the host needing the map pack, all it is is a set of coordinates.