PDA

View Full Version : Multiplayer, espacially naval game



McLeod
15th Jul 2004, 17:48
Hi!

up to now i'm a fan of age of sail 2 from akella and play it nearly all time online, but the game got old and is still buggy, because they never really support.

so my question is most about the naval part of the game, which, i read before, is not completly worked out. but i would like to hear more about it, cause i'm searching for a modern alternative to aos.

there are many good points in the old aos, espacially in the control system of the ship. so i like to know if you will design the ship control more or less detailed than that or totaly different.

i also would be interessted, how the multiplayer game should be set up - based on fix scenarions like aos (one of the bad points in it) or more based on maps where players can choose the units they like to have, like starfleet commander3. imo a interessting point also for battles at land.

also i would like to know if IG will have the possibility to personalize ship with flags and names. don't know if this could be interessting for land units too.

the screenshot of you naval battle looks pretty cool, just the national flag at the bowsprit distubes a bit.;)

Kazarian
18th Jul 2004, 17:16
While I've never played AoS or Starfleet Commander 3, I agree that there should be tons of options for the multiplayer aspect of the game (in addition to a few preset scenarios). Especially because the developers don't plan on including multiplayer campaigns. This might be the thread to begin suggesting possible options for multiplayer skirmishes. Off the top of my head, here are a few obvious options.

Number of Players
I hope that there will be options for at least a 2 on 2 match or 4 player free for all

Empires
Obviously the players should be able to select which empire they control.

Terrain
The players should be able to select the terrain and the game should generate a random map based on the terrain type. There may be more detailed options here, such as number of rivers, amount of ocean, how much vegetation there is, and how mountainous the map is.

Total number of troops involved
The players should be able to select how large a battle they wish to fight, from a very small skirmish to a major engagement.

Willmore
18th Jul 2004, 20:00
I doubt imperial glory will be anything like aos2, aos2 was a naval game, this will be a hybrid of everything, with the naval aspect getting far less attention than in aos2.

haradrim
17th Aug 2004, 14:40
i doubt this would be in the game but wouldnt it be awsome if u could hire privateers and have them only attack the nations you are warring against

Willmore
17th Aug 2004, 15:12
Doesn't exactly fit with the times. Privateers were never large, hardly ever the size of a frigate, as such they would be ineffective against opposing navies, and only able to harm commerce, and with the impact that you yourself can cause on an ecenomy, the effect would hardly justify the costs.

That's why countries didn't hire privateers, privateers came to the government and asked for letters of marque, to be ABLE to attack the enemy, in order to profit for themselves.

Nizze
17th Aug 2004, 16:36
It would be cool if u could play 3 player vs 3 player and only two countris. Evry person handle some unit and one is the general that can order the other player´s waht to do. This would be werry realistic becuse during this timeperiod you had one general that controled the army and some generals´s that controlled a section of the army.

Arctic_Wolf
17th Aug 2004, 21:09
There's a game called Savage thats a bit like that. Its an online RTS wereby 1 person is the leader and give the orders and the rest on his/her team follow its interesting but hell if you have a slow connection.

Though I don't think it would work for this game, army units don't have that much freedom on the field so it may get a bit boring, it might work with fleets and such though.

McLeod
18th Aug 2004, 22:53
imo the difference between fleet and armies is not such big.

we play like that in aos in online games. one takes lead and commandes the fleet. you normally sail each ship independently. sometimes players command more than one ship, but they steer and fire with each ship.

in an army you have different also squadrons and companies, that can be controlled independent to form a battle-line. this would make it possible to react more flexible in battle. you won't need ai for react on a cavalary attack and you are not pressed into schemes of battle order. the commanding officer just advises the others, what they have to do, but it's on their duty to follow or not.

Nizze
19th Aug 2004, 13:21
The general (Napoleon/Wllington)whit the highest rank do not order how a hill should be taken he only give another general order to take the hill and how many solider´s/resource it needs to take the hill. Then it is up to the general (Ney) that got the order to dicede how the hill shuld be taken. The french army where diveded in "section" (there is an military name on it but i can´t rember what it is.) And this difrent "section´s" had both cavallery, infantery and artillery.If we say that there are 3 players on both side and thre are 20 units evry player will get 10 units each or if the general should get some units two plaers would get 7 units and one 6 units. So I dont see way it should be boring.

Willmore
20th Aug 2004, 02:18
The idea isn't new, but in the end, what you get is as many stupid players as smart, and the stupid players won't give a crap about what the general says.

The word you're looking for, I think is Corps or Battalion.

Nizze
20th Aug 2004, 12:37
I think you have right.
Like in Battlefield 1942 thre is all this talk about co-operation and team work but in the end people only run around and try to get the higest stat´s.

Czar
20th Aug 2004, 13:41
Originally posted by Nizze
I think you have right.
Like in Battlefield 1942 thre is all this talk about co-operation and team work but in the end people only run around and try to get the higest stat´s.

Yes, this is not the first forum to raise this issue. It is killing FPS Multiplayer Games because too many players are starting to get frustrated with idiots.

It is a solvable problem however.
Particularly in an age of sail war game. In Imperial Glory this would only work if Multiplayer Co-operative mode allowed players to play as 'Captains' on the same side (in the same Navy).
Players are assigned a 'rank' which allows them to command a certain number of ships (maximium number).
They start as an Ensign perhaps and may command a single Frigate at best. Promotions however are only attained through success AND based on the reccomendations of fellow Captains and Commanders.
Could work for Armies too?

The Admin for this could be tricky... I'm not sure?
Would have to be run by Eidos.

This way - players who wish to command a Ship of the Line, or even a Squadron, can only get there through hard work and Co-operation.

Willmore
20th Aug 2004, 23:10
Again a problem - this take resources by eidos post-release, which is not soemthing any company is looking to have.

It also doesn't eliminate the "independance" of players, a captain of a minor frigate might not care what his captain is saying, and just board some other frigate, gain his points, and advance in rank, he's also likely have friends, who would be happy to "sponsor" him.

In any case, what you want is fairly easy, all you have to do is role play it, instead of making it built-into the game.

Czar
21st Aug 2004, 09:29
Originally posted by Willmore
Again a problem - this take resources by eidos post-release, ....., and just board some other frigate, gain his points, and advance in rank, he's also likely have friends, who would be happy to "sponsor" him.

...
Darn! Foiled again!

:rolleyes:

Good Point.

Arctic_Wolf
21st Aug 2004, 23:00
Originally posted by Nizze
So I dont see way it should be boring.

Controlling a ship has a much bigger ego boost, can't think of a better phrase, to it than controlling a small piece of an army.

"A whole goddamn warship, though it is in a fleet!"
"Oh lookie, I get a squad in an army..."

That may just be my fixation with Naval stuff but theres more.

As a unit or two of troops what options do you have? Move, Formation and possibly stance.(Stand Ground, Attack, etc.). The general tells you where you move, what formation you are and what stance to use, oh what fun it is to follow orders. You see if it was maybe, your army + an allies army, like a coop it might work better.

As a ship or two, you have a much higher degree of options. Move, Formation(for more than one), Type of shot, sails(half, full, furled), Bombardment, Broad side, Fore, Aft, board enemy. And allthough the admiral would give you some of those orders and are still following a grand plan, due to the nature of naval combat you would have a much more liberal way to accomplish this and you after your initial objectives it would be quite hard, realisticly, to get new ones.

Am I right or am I just talking crap again?

Nizze
22nd Aug 2004, 10:42
As a unit or two of troops what options do you have? Move, Formation and possibly stance.(Stand Ground, Attack, etc.). The general tells you where you move, what formation you are and what stance to use, oh what fun it is to follow orders. You see if it was maybe, your army + an allies army, like a coop it might work better.
A general during that time didn´t order how a attack would carry out he only gave the order to attack and where the attack would take place. Then the brigade general hade preaty mutch fredom to accomplish the attack as he wanted. But I agree whit you that u have nmutch more freedom in a naval battle then in a land battle.

McLeod
22nd Aug 2004, 15:42
i don't agree with the liberality in a naval battle. if you are sailing in line (the most effective formation and nealy every time used in battles), there is no possibility to board the enermy and if you leave the line, you risk to be shot into pieces. without an order no captain would have done this. only in small engagements or when your enermies starts fleeing you have that possibilities and liberals. like in land war, those who seperate from the other troops were easy targets and weak the hole army(navy).

but this is also right for land battles. instead of boarding you just make a bajonett-attack. speed is also adjustable - running marching or just take cover. instead of the different shot types you have different units infanty, cavelery and artillery.

to the problem of idiot:
i'm more a naval player (age of sail at the moment), so mayby you would like to correct me, but i think there will be also enough time to chat during the battles. so you can give clear commands to you officers.
in bf42 you just control 1 man at a time and you have to care about this sodier, cause he could be killed by just a single shot.
in ig you will have a to command and not shot by yourself. this gives you more time for converstion. it will be possible that this get lost in the confusions during a battle, but you can bring your tactics to your players before this.
you also have to think about communities or clans, that would be build up, to provide the game (i.e. i'm in a community to play aos2 and privateers bouty - both from akella - and we have different fleets, doing roleplay, making wars and engagements). they will make the real fun in the online gaming. sure it's also nice to just lock in and play with others totally unknown, but there you never solve the problem of idiots, just playing for themself and don't listen to any orders.

and another differenct to all those shooter games is you won't win, without working together. i will give you an example from our actual game aos: if you fight in an 3 vs 3 ships of the line battle and one of the players of side a didn't follow the commands of his admiral, but side b sails disciplined. side b will take the chance to shoot the one ship into pieces and than they have an easy game against the rest of a. so no player have an interest to play for just himself to make points.
in bf42 side a would just loose 1 life and player will return to game. so much less dramatic and players get their individual points for their play and not just win or loose for the hole team.

Arctic_Wolf
23rd Aug 2004, 20:13
Originally posted by Nizze
A general during that time didn´t order how a attack would carry out he only gave the order to attack and where the attack would take place. Then the brigade general hade preaty mutch fredom to accomplish the attack as he wanted. But I agree whit you that u have nmutch more freedom in a naval battle then in a land battle.


Originally posted by McLeod
i don't agree with the liberality in a naval battle. if you are sailing in line (the most effective formation and nealy every time used in battles), there is no possibility to board the enermy and if you leave the line, you risk to be shot into pieces. without an order no captain would have done this. only in small engagements or when your enermies starts fleeing you have that possibilities and liberals. like in land war, those who seperate from the other troops were easy targets and weak the hole army(navy).


And how exactly are you going to make sure players use these 19th Century tactics?

Nizze
24th Aug 2004, 13:50
The tactics That was used during 19th Century was the most effective tactic during the period. And if you don´t know this you will understand that after you have played some battles.
E.G. If you play in a naval battle and youre team are not co-ordinatinged and you fight against a team that moving in a line and are co-ordinatinged youre team will lose and youre team will understand that it is better to move in a line.

McLeod
27th Sep 2004, 19:01
sorry for the delay in answering.

but nizze comment is exactly, what i mean. there is no chance to win a battle alone. you will need to cooperate or your team will loose completly. no chance to take advantage out of fighting for your own.
the problem you speak of in bf42 bases on the system of giving points and starting with a new person after you are killed. the idea of this were imo to keep players up to the end in the game.
ok, for a simple shooter, but not for a strategic simulation. in a shooter you don't need big strategies, but good shooters.
in ig this must be different, cause you don't shoot yourself, you just give the command to your soldiers. if your unit is ripped of or imprisioned or your ship sunk, imo there will be no chance to reenter the actual combat. you will have to wait for restart. starting up with a new unit in the same game would make no strategical sence.

Arctic_Wolf
28th Sep 2004, 00:56
Originally posted by Nizze
E.G. If you play in a naval battle and youre team are not co-ordinatinged and you fight against a team that moving in a line and are co-ordinatinged youre team will lose and youre team will understand that it is better to move in a line.

I see what you mean but if someone isn't having fun playing to the real tactics of the time, maybe they want to try some of their own or freelance around the battle for a bit, you can't really force them. There are no real punishments you can administer or threats you can carry out. So besides loyalty or a strong desire to win there isn't really anything I can think of to stop them from playing outside the times.

McLeod
3rd Oct 2004, 02:06
right, you have no way to punish those people or stop them, doing, what they want. but personally i don't know any game, where you are able to do so. but before you do control this by game, you better can just play 1 vs 1. cause taking away controls from other players will kill their fun in the game. who will decide about leadership in a game? and what will a players then be able to do, if the genaral is an idiot?

imo this problems can not be solved by any program. you will need online organisations for this, where you can mayby build up a chain of command for battles: mayby just a single guild or army or an organisation, that provides more nations, which are able to fight against each others. we did that in sealords that way and are able to run 9 navies on our site and forum. we organize campaings and wars, by building up rules for them, which make this possible.

ok, we are a much smaller community there, cause our game is pretty old and ig imo expect bigger selling rates, but not all will play online and mayby there will be more than one organisation.

so i tell you how we handle your problem:
the structure of each fleet with different ranks, also clears leadership in battle. if someone didn't follow the command of a higher officer without any reason (idiots, just killing the strategie for fun), can be punished by admirality of navy or the other players by not to play with him anymore.

The_Russian_Rocket
3rd Oct 2004, 12:39
McLeod, this is a good thought but people will go around wrongfully "punishing".

Vic Flange
13th Oct 2004, 14:26
Couple of answers:

You won't personalise ships - they'll have real names, e.g. HMS Victory
Flags and ship models are non-final, so don't be too concerned about these details
Multi-player is 2-4 players. Maps won't be random

Willmore
14th Oct 2004, 02:19
Will these ships correspond to their name, ie. A 100+ gun HMS Victory, or will we see just a random amount of names, that will be used as needed - A Frigate HMS Victory

WilliamBushUSN
29th Oct 2004, 21:13
I just noticed that you said there will only be 2-4 players for naval engagements.

Is this final?

To have a feel of a real fleet action I would say the minimum would have to be 8 players.

There is work going on in the Age Of Sail II community, to do a homegrown mod to increase MP to 16 players.

I hope you seriously try to increase the MP portion of the game.

Regards,

Bush

Capt. Hatter USN
30th Oct 2004, 04:19
With the spread of cable internet use, 2-4 players would be REAL missed opportunity.

Walsh
2nd Nov 2004, 11:21
I agree that the MP option should be increased beyond 2-4 players. Having played in GS with more players involved, in some cases 5 per side in Age of Sail II, I am well aware of what a great experience it can be.

I would urge the developers to increase the numbers who can be involved in battles on land and sea. I think it would pay off in terms of the game making its mark on the gaming community and in helping with the game's appeal and longevity.

CaptTermiteUSN
2nd Nov 2004, 14:58
4 player max in multiplayer will probably not satisfy experienced players of TotalWar versions, and is no better than the Privateer's Bounty mod of AOSII offers. 8 players on line in Viking Invasion had some problems occasionally with the stability of the host player, but a good cable connection in the host of an mp game allowed it and having 4 allies per side offered some very fascinating land battles.

We had had up to 10 players in the old AOSII game in multiplayer on a few occasions but seldom more. We have had a proportionally increased amount of games with 8 players connecting and playing, particularly if they were skilled enough to handle more than one ship. Most of us can now handle more than one ship and this also is interesting although lag is a problem at times. At 3 or 4 ships per side even a good dial up connection can host these days and again the action is exciting, unless you just dont like the speed of a sailing ship which is understandable to some players.

The real drawbacks in AOS and PB to date have been:
1- the fragility of the connection if there is a collision, it usually crashes.
2- boarding has not been an option at all during all of our play in PB and AOS, this is a real disappointment, but it has increased our understanding of sailing tactics between ships. I'll put anyone who has played this game - the Bro's, the IRN, the MFr, the RN or our fine USN guys up against anyone who plays IG for the first time and expect them to win as soon as they figure out the controls and learn to judge speed, turn and loading rate, and the effective range of various shot.
3-students of the large naval engagements of this period have only had the opportunity to see a large naval battle such as Trafalgar or the Saints in single player. Even then it is spectacular to fly the camera around and watch so many guns going off and so much rigging in various states of damage. It is almost impossible to control a large fleet like this single handed, but some of us have simply not assigned portions of the fleet to our control and thus learned to handle 10 ships well instead of 3 or 5. you get into a flow of checking heading, damage etc and its of course not too difficult to beat the AI with just a portion of the fleet. To have a large online battle with several players controlling say, a squadron of ships each, would be amaziing and we all still hope to see it someday. We all know there will be compromises but I dont expect to ever see it until game developers widen their expectations enough to accomodate the experience.

We applaud the efforts of any game developers in this respect. The fact that IG seeks to provide both land and sea action in the same game is very welcomed. We hope players anxious to play this game will find an old copy of AOSII and give us a go.

CaptTermite USN
USS Constellation 38
Chesapeake Bay