M2TW .. Multiplayer !

**justice7** · May 04, 2006, 10:12 AM

I'm not sure if this has been covered at all...

But, i'd like to see a Campaign level Multiplayer Mode for M2TW..

Has any of you ever played Lords of the Realm II ? There were several campaign maps, some with only 5 or so territories; some with 4, or even 3.

This would be a great addition to the game if there were different (smaller) campaign maps that could be played in multiplayer.

LOTR2 was way ahead of its time with this, and I would LOVE to see this ability added to M2TW.

**St.Bore** · May 04, 2006, 10:21 AM

That is an issue that was missing in rome, dont know what was the case im MTW1, but I vote for "MP campagne map". Playing it with friends could be fun!!!

**justice7** · May 04, 2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by St.Bore

That is an issue that was missing in rome, dont know what was the case im MTW1, but I vote for "MP campagne map". Playing it with friends could be fun!!!

compeltely agreed it was missing in Rome. I as hoping for a patch or an expansion for this but none has arised.

I am hopeful that the next TW game has this feature. It would really add to the depth of the game.

**Scarlett Letterman** · May 04, 2006, 01:39 PM

This issue has been discussed to death. Most everyone accedes that a multiplayer campaign is not feasible because of the turn based system TW uses. You would be constantly waiting while other players play out their battles, not to mention how long campaigns take meaning few could sit through an entire campaign straight through.

The only solution I see is to create an RTS style campaign game, and if another player attacked you while you were already in a battle, the AI would handle that army. Otherwise just make all battles auto resolve, which wouldn't be so bad really.

**justice7** · May 04, 2006, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Scarlett Letterman

This issue has been discussed to death. Most everyone accedes that a multiplayer campaign is not feasible because of the turn based system TW uses. You would be constantly waiting while other players play out their battles, not to mention how long campaigns take meaning few could sit through an entire campaign straight through.

The only solution I see is to create an RTS style campaign game, and if another player attacked you while you were already in a battle, the AI would handle that army. Otherwise just make all battles auto resolve, which wouldn't be so bad really.

True, but take a look at how Civilization IV works... it has multiplayer turn based support and allows for 'hot-seat' dropping and joining of players into a live campaign.

What i've proposed is that the campaign map itself be smaller in size and scale. Such as having one or two territories per faction.

Yes, the game would be longer than your standard battle.. and in fact may last a couple of hours... but having the ability to do this would be amazing.

Add in a hot-seat capability where players can join a game in progress a la Civ IV .. then you've got one sweet game.

As for the turn based gameplay being a problem -- allowing simeltanious movements of units works out pretty well. Players will move their units and end their turns... with battles in between where needed.

the only issue we would face is if there are 3 or more players , and only two of those players are participating in a battle. I am sure though, that there is a logical solution for this as well. (allow that user to watch the battle perhaps, or to allow them to examine their buildings and taxes etc) ... i think allowing them to watch the battle may be more 'fun', however less strategic. Could be an ingame option.

**_]Blackfire[_** · May 04, 2006, 02:37 PM

You know this whole problem about "OH the other player would take forever to finish off his turn and therefore have a ridiculously long game."

Simple fix to this... MAKE A TIME LIMIT! Wow how hard would it be for a player to get 5 minutes or so to move his army, recruit, and manage is cities?? At the end of 5 minutes the turn would end and move on to the next player. Of course everything would have to be sized down and the number of players playing would need to be tweeked.

**Lusted** · May 04, 2006, 02:44 PM

There is also the slight problem that CA would have to spend time on an entirely new campaign map just for MP. Making simultaenous turns or a specific RTS campaign would taken a lot of coding time away from the SP game, and is just not what the TW series is about. Time limits are very restricting, i often spend much longer than 5 minutes on doing stuff a turn, i would feel rushed having only 5 minutes to make decisions.

**justice7** · May 04, 2006, 02:47 PM

You wouldn't need overly long if the map was much smaller

Also, it wouldnt be "THAT" difficult to create a new campaign map. I am sure they have a campaign map editor, where they can quite easily create new maps. You could even 'Cut out' portions of the single player map if you really needed to.

I like the idea of simeltanious movements and rounds.. "hit end when done", and an overall time limit so no one takes toooo long. once everyone hits end, the next round begins.

pretty simple, really.

**Lusted** · May 04, 2006, 02:50 PM

Not really, a simultaenous turn system would be a major change to the underlying turn based system of the TW series. Plus the here is the fact that if 2 players have a huge epic hour long battle, would the other players be willing to hang around for that long to make their turn?

**justice7** · May 04, 2006, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Lusted

Not really, a simultaenous turn system would be a major change to the underlying turn based system of the TW series. Plus the here is the fact that if 2 players have a huge epic hour long battle, would the other players be willing to hang around for that long to make their turn?

This would indeed be an issue, however there must be other solutions to help alleviate this.

Such as being able to play in the game's "arcade mode" so the battles go by more quickly... (have this as an option for those that request it) ...

I also think those that want to play the multiplayer campaign are prepared for this type of waiting ingame.

I think if you were observing a battle, you should be able to go back to the campaign map while the battle is in progress to look things over.. or perhaps begin your own battle with player #4 who is also doing the same thing. It should then be possible to have two simeltanious battles going on at once.

If a player is already engaged in a battle, the attacking player must wait until the battle is over to begin the next one.

Yes, there would be a wait... however this still worked out for Lords of the realm II . .which was a turn based war strategy game.. the battles weren't quite hours long, but sometimes they could be 20 minutes or more.

The ability to Save and Resume in multiplayer would be a necessity as well.

Hows this for an out there idea -- online persistant turn based games .. you enter one of these with a number of other players and each takes their turn, which is then submitted to the main server. Each turn would last a set amount of time.. and when a battle is ordered, they are given the remainder of their turn to see if they want to fight it out live, or have the CPU decide .. or to "allow the CPU to fight and play for you" if you have to go for a while... allow yourself to set what kind of CPU intelligence you want toward each nation (hostile, friendly etc) .. and allow hotseat dropping and returning into the game.

So lets say i'm playing and i have to go to work -- i can set my options and leave the game as is, and the cpu will fight the battles on the field for me. When i get home from work I can observe the cpu's progress and pick it up from there.

**Wild Bill Kelso** · May 12, 2006, 12:57 AM

Just so people know. Currently I am running basically a forum multiplayer campaign using a boardgame style set up and the old Viking Invasion expansion pack to settle battles. I intend to futher develop the rules and implement them into a MTW2 forum multiplayer campaign. If all goes well I am hoping that many of you will play and enjoy it! (though this is some time from now)

**Belisarius** · May 18, 2006, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Wild Bill Kelso

Just so people know. Currently I am running basically a forum multiplayer campaign using a boardgame style set up and the old Viking Invasion expansion pack to settle battles. I intend to futher develop the rules and implement them into a MTW2 forum multiplayer campaign. If all goes well I am hoping that many of you will play and enjoy it! (though this is some time from now)

Count me in. :original:

**Beiss** · May 17, 2006, 11:57 PM

I think I had an interesting idea. Look here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=51155

**Kdar** · May 18, 2006, 12:25 AM

Hot Seat thing would be nice.... But playing online... waiting one some one... no..

**Beiss** · May 18, 2006, 12:34 AM

There's no need to wait for someone. You can always just click away and play against the computer instead if noone wants to fight you. Considering how many people will be playing mtw2, though, I don't think you'd have to sit around for long. Given a balanced reward system, I'm sure there would be a large number of players playing the online opponent rather than the campaign game, each one aspiring to become the best. The problem isn't finding someone to play against, but to balance things so that the battles are fair and so you don't end up fighting a battle against a player who is either much better or much worse than the AI general whose place he or she takes.

**Sitarus Originalus PM-30+** · May 18, 2006, 08:38 AM

i hope the campain multiplayer will be an option. i dont know and i have no idea how to solve most of the problems but i agree that plaing agains human would make game much more realistic and i would finaly get rid of AI who doesnt really think in advance, etc. i also agree with what Lusted said... i know i dont have so much time i could wait my opponent to move everything and so on, also i dont want to have only 5 min to make my turn.