No Multiplayer campaign, but something close and strange...

This was taken from Gamespot:

While these are all significant upgrades and tweaks, perhaps the most exciting new feature in Napoleon will be the campaign's drop-in multiplayer option, which you can simply check "on" or "off" as you play. If you elect to leave the option "on," this means you'll be able to play out any of the battles you face during your single-player campaign not against the computer-controlled AI as usual, but against an actual human player online through Steam who may offer a much stiffer challenge. Creative is confident that this new feature, and the complete randomness of potentially finding either an easy walkover opponent or a tough veteran adversary will add much to the experience. It's definitely an intriguing option and one the studio hopes will be engaging to the zealous Total War fan community.

So when we play the single player campaign, we can decide to not verse the AI but a real person via multiplayer. Sounds interesting, there's also heaps of new information from that site! Plus new pics.
http://au.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/n...reviews&page=1

It seems to me that they are not able to make the Battle AI any better than Empire's, and therefore have decided to give you the option to play versus a human player so no AI is needed at all!

Originally Posted by DUFFMAN

It seems to me that they are not able to make the Battle AI any better than Empire's, and therefore have decided to give you the option to play versus a human player so no AI is needed at all!

that is exactly what i thought, and it is a good idea. and it solves the problem of every enemy general acting the same way.

but yes i agree, they figured this was easier than making a good BAI. in fact, they can't make a good BAI in an 11 month development cycle given what they had to work with in the ETW BAI, this is an acceptable solution assuming opponents can be found. it would also be nice if there was a more reliable way to rank opponents, so then you might have some idea of the noteriety of the person you are about to face, and can plan accordingly.

the smart thing is that you'll need to actually buy the game to take advantage of this feature. it's about time.

but what does this mean for the original MP campaign? that better be out for empire soon, or there is no chance I'll stop my negative advertisment campaign.

So if i opted to join one of these battles i'd be stuck with whatever army composition the AI has chosen?! Not sure i like that idea....

Originally Posted by StormTheBreach

So if i opted to join one of these battles i'd be stuck with whatever army composition the AI has chosen?! Not sure i like that idea....

there was a guy saying that Campaign players will be upset that they got owned by a non AI opponent


Well considering that the person joining will have 2 militia 5 armed citizens and a general unit with no artillery versus a full stack because the AI refused to retreat.. and absolutely NO light infantry EVER from what Ive seen the AI never built them.


so all you MP fanatics that think we are idiots that cant play ... good luck beating my full stack with your militia units lol

Originally Posted by dmcheatw

that is exactly what i thought, and it is a good idea. and it solves the problem of every enemy general acting the same way.

but yes i agree, they figured this was easier than making a good BAI. in fact, they can't make a good BAI in an 11 month development cycle given what they had to work with in the ETW BAI, this is an acceptable solution assuming opponents can be found. it would also be nice if there was a more reliable way to rank opponents, so then you might have some idea of the noteriety of the person you are about to face, and can plan accordingly.

THis may shock you but so far in gaming history Human players are generally speaking tougher opponents than AI. They can make whatever good battle AI (which holds battle lines and at least provide a decent challenge) but it will never be on the same level as a veteran human player. Not to mention that the random joe you meet online may end up being a pushover and worse than the AI itself.

This is interesting though if they can pull this off but that means that they'll be guys online just waiting for a fight

Reminds me of that South Park World of Warcraft episode where that one guy who had no life was pwning everyone. If someone like that existed no one would ever want to play MP because they'd never get past the guy

Originally Posted by nameless

THis may shock you but so far in gaming history Human players are generally speaking tougher opponents than AI. They can make whatever good battle AI (which holds battle lines and at least provide a decent challenge) but it will never be on the same level as a veteran human player. Not to mention that the random joe you meet online may end up being a pushover and worse than the AI itself.

This is interesting though if they can pull this off but that means that they'll be guys online just waiting for a fight

Reminds me of that South Park World of Warcraft episode where that one guy who had no life was pwning everyone. If someone like that existed no one would ever want to play MP because they'd never get past the guy

Haha, I love South Park and that episode! The guy is so funny with his pimples, glasses, and carpul tunnel wrist brace!

What a waste, who the hell thought this feature was a good idea? The Dev that came up with with idea seriously needs to leave CA immediately before they tarnish CA's reputation any further.

Originally Posted by Chyeaaaa111

Haha, I love South Park and that episode! The guy is so funny with his pimples, glasses, and carpul tunnel wrist brace!

*At CA's palace of gold*

Keiran - Gentlemen, there is someone online going around annihilating every player's armies in their campaign battles and ruining their game. No one can even get pass Turn 10.

Jack - But that's impossible! The system is perfect! The game is suppose to be fun and flexible, to allow people to choose. In fact, they can simply click "No player" option.

Keiran - They can't, our techpriests inform us that somehow he is able to hack in regardless of the option, even if they don't have any internet, and defeat their armies on the field.

Jack - But against so many users? How could he defeat all of their armies with so much ease?

Keiran - Apparently we are dealing with someone here who "has no life"

Mike - Oh gawg, my friends! I was no longer embarrased to give out copies of our TW games on release and gave to 6 of them, I have to warn them!

Keiran - Mike....all of your friends' armies have already been wiped out to the last man..

Mike - No....no....No!!! They just started playing!

Human interaction via the internet tends to bring out the worst in people, and online gaming involving strangers has a long and woeful history of cheating, exploits, trainers and sore losers with 'mystery 'disconnects'.

Tis often said that the biggest obstacle in developing online gaming are online gamers.

I see an army of social misfits and loners, with all the spare time in the world, sat there lurking and waiting to trash other peoples campaign progress.


A battle option most definitely to be avoided.

I would disagree, based on Dmcheat's statement

i personally can't think of anything more fun than runing other peoples campaigns. and yes i am good enough to do that in the real time tactical battles. muahahaha

and on the flip side, i welcome the prospect of actually losing some of my real time battles and having one of my campaigns frustrated.

The only way to screw up a guy's campaign progress is really just trash his battle (AKA defeat his forces). I mean how else can you do it? In ETW prior to the battle you can set the time limit and such (and obviously you'd set it to 20 minutes to control the battle). If he were to disconnect, well, then the AI would come back and deal with it. There are some things you cannot control.

Unfortunately in MP's settings they will either be good people or bad people. Though with STEAM you could probably set up clans and groups to be specific when it comes to allowing human players to control the armies.

Though this seems to have been taken from the MP campaign in which case when one guy is fighting a battle the other guy whose playing with him will be able to control the AI's forces.

Originally Posted by nameless

This is interesting though if they can pull this off but that means that they'll be guys online just waiting for a fight

If they work it properly it sounds like a great idea. Rather than just sitting waiting for a battle you would play your normal campaign, and if you have the player battles ticked you would get a pop-up saying there is a battle ready for you to control, do you accept (random army on another persons campaign - saves and closes your campaign, opens the battle) or vice versa you are attacked / attack an enemy army and the call goes out to those who have the option ticked for them to play the enemy and fight you against your campaign army

As long as it is restricted to fairly even armies so you don't join a battle to find yourself controlling 2 militia units vs a full stack, plus a lot of other regulations regarding battle time limit issues ( eg: player has lost and runs his remaining single cavalry unit around the map for the next 40 minutes), it sounds very exciting - and ground breaking? Haven't heard of another game using this type of technology

Well I rater like the idea, anyway, they say it's going to be better then ETW at 1.5, and 1.5 was ok, so the AI must be good in NTW! I just think they are having problems with creating a multiplayer campaign, so this is their solution!

Originally Posted by Marshal Beale

Well I rater like the idea, anyway, they say it's going to be better then ETW at 1.5, and 1.5 was ok, so the AI must be good in NTW! I just think they are having problems with creating a multiplayer campaign, so this is their solution!

Errr...from the preview

Napoleon's AI opponents will be at least as tough as anything you see in Empire version 1.5

Originally Posted by Ebusitanus

Errr...from the preview

At least, meaning, it can't be any worse then 1.5 was, anyway, i probably will stick mostly to the AI for campaign battles but every now and then through in a multiplayer campaign battle.

And yes, we all know you can't trust a review/preview!

Originally Posted by Marshal Beale

And yes, we all know you can't trust a review/preview!

Actually, having gone through, and believed, most of the CA propaganda we got before ETW´s launch makes me rather very skeptic about whatever CA promises us now. The only one I trust at this time is Jack Lusted from the whole team.

What's this?... "This is an army of social inadequates, with all the spare time in the world, honing their NTW battle skills and sat in waiting.


Why?.... "So they can vent their anger on society by trashing other peoples campaigns"


Sounds like an option to avoid ?....."If you've got any sense you will".

sounds awesome...

if you are really scared of another person while you play SP just make sure to pick your fights well... why go into a battle with a few units that you know may OP the AI, cuz now there is a real brain behind an attacker!!! LoL!

I like it!!!

Well, I see as it could add depth into the game, so I like it, but I would mostly have it switched off. Because that sends traits out the window when in battle, and skill. But it is a good option for when one is bored and want a challenge after you have been playing it for a while.

Would the challenger even know how important the battle is?

Thats something we're going to have to find out......

i personally can't think of anything more fun than runing other peoples campaigns. and yes i am good enough to do that in the real time tactical battles. muahahaha

and on the flip side, i welcome the prospect of actually losing some of my real time battles and having one of my campaigns frustrated.