View Full Version : What about a multiplayer system like Spartan?

29th Aug 2004, 14:22
Spartan, a grand strategic game with rts like battles has a grand strategic map for multiplayer. It only allows two players, and when one player invades a computer player the opposing player controls the enemy forces. You're also allowed to save, so that when both players get bored or have to go you can pick it up later. They had another interesting system in the multiplayer, but as of now i forget, check out their website to see all of their cool features.

29th Aug 2004, 17:11
Spartan was an extremelly boring game, IMO.

29th Aug 2004, 17:30
I wasnt commenting on the game, I was pointing out it was similar and that it's multiplayer system could be transported to Imperial Glory. Your reply makes no sense.

29th Aug 2004, 18:15
What was the multiplayer like? I've never played, so I'd like to know.

29th Aug 2004, 20:00
The game is far from similar, in Spartan, the emphasis is on grand strategy, cities, building, planning, etc. In IG, the emphasis will likely be on battles, and tactical strategy.

Multiplayer can be handled in many ways, but Spatan's way will simply not fit.

30th Aug 2004, 10:51
I suppose it would be a five player system for IG, but I disagree that IG will be more about battles, they will certainly be important but what about the grand empire management where you can even mess about with the government.

Spartan was a good game but it lacked something that other games have, so I played them instead. The battle system is poo though, :rolleyes:

30th Aug 2004, 14:51
Certainly, IG will have a good empire management, but it will not be as expanded as those games that focus on it. As such, I would consider the battle side of it more important to the devs.

30th Aug 2004, 21:56
I dunno about that from what I've read the empire management will go deeper than most games

But whatever the case in IG without the one, there won't be the other or we'd up with a completely different game, called cossacks, and so I would expect both aspects to have a somewhat equal level of polish

1st Sep 2004, 20:09
from what i've read IG will be more about managing your empire, then actual battles hence part of the reason they only have a limited number of troops in battles.

7th Sep 2004, 18:26
Compared to what? Medieval Total War has a max of 1880 men, 940 a side. You can field an army of more than that, but not at a time, the rest come on as reinforcements. Besides, I found fielding an army of about a thousand men a handful at times anyway. Its fine most of the time, but when you're being flanked and have cav circling round behind, and you need to get your reserve spears into position fast, but at the same time the centre needs micromanagement, and oh bugger my general just decided to charge into a trap.... gets messy fast. A thousand a side I think is a good number as far as control goes. It feels like a large army but its still controllable. Wouldn't want it much bigger.

Or were you comparing IG to Cossacks? Yes it was more epic, but it was also an "RTS", an unReal Time noStrategy game. Build hordes of units and throw them away while you make more... Not quite the same genre.

From what I've read, IG will be more about battles, because they seperate the economy and empire management from the battlefield thus allowing you to concentrate on tactics.

PS apologies to Cossacks fans! :D It is actually quite a cool game, and there is actual tactics involved. I just hate RTSs.

7th Sep 2004, 18:58
It sounds like quite a good multiplayer system. Probably could do it with more than 2 players too, either the full five empires or maybe three or with guest players (or an opponant) commanding the armies of the computer player's faction(s) when there is a battle between a player and computer player.

Now, this obviously wouldn't work because (judging from MTW) some battles take more than an hour, and no one wants to be sitting on the sidelines that long. I mean with 5 players, two playing at a time, that means three sitting around waiting, right? And as others have pointed out, people around the globe have different interests, run on different timetables, and making compatable schedules (which people actually stick to) would just be a nightmare, and then people get bored and wander off anyway. In fact I think any attempt at running a player campaign by multiplayer would be doomed to failure.


What if it wasn't a player running the player campaign? What if each faction was commanded by a clan? You could have turns on a weekly basis, where on a Monday the "king" comes in, and does the admin turn, with all the diplomacy, trade, building, troop movements etc. Then during the week the battles get fought by the members of the clan, who log on, say something like "Hi, I'm from the 'Toowanky for my shorts' clan, you're from the 'n00b n00dles' clan, and I see you've invaded my province. Lets get it on." Or perhaps "I see you're attacking computer player Prussia. Would you like me to command Prussia?"
With people playing from all over the world, it is highly unlikely that me here in Taiwan will be able to regularly play against you in America or wherever. But if people from all over the world are in clans, then the chance of anyone from clan Toowanky being able to log on and play anyone from n00b n00dles is much greater. And it doesn't really matter if someone gets bored and walks of, unless a clan does that.

On a side note, how do the Close Combat guys go it? I've heard they have (or had) a quite active multiplayer community, where people were doing campaigns by multiplayer. But then they have to, the AI is crap...

7th Sep 2004, 20:12
Originally posted by Ragnar_NZ
unReal Time noStrategy game. I just hate RTSs.

RTS are class, they do run in real time and have plenty of strategy.

Age of Empires for example, real-time base-building and non horde-mongering. While the strategy may not be the same as in battle simulations, AoE is not and doesn't pretend to be a full battle sim like M:TW, it is and has no qualms about being a real time strategy. It has still got the basic premise of Medieval strategy just condensed down to fit into the game Ensemble wanted to make.

M:TW is also a real-time strategy, or atleast half of it is. Its battle simulations run and operate in real time (i.e no turns) and you use your strategies and tactics in order to play it.

Thats all RTS means, the base building is just one branch of the genre. SO by hating RTS, you must also hate half of M:TW and will hate half of IG.

So take that loz0r! ;)

7th Sep 2004, 21:08
Real time? It takes 10 seconds to build a building. In the Total War series, it takes a year. That's a bit more real.

Strategy? I knew some Koreans who played starcraft when I was at uni. they were very, very good at it. Strategy? Not really. Tactics? Not really. Formula? Hell yes. Make 1 harvester then a spawning pool then 1 harvester then 10 zerg and rush. Next add one harvester, a creep colony, half a cup of milk and stir briskly. Set the oven to 120 degrees and make a hydrolisk den.

I always lost cos although I was better at fighting with what I had, they would eventually overwhelm me with huge numbers of better troops; because they had the formula down pat. AoE exactly the same. Cossacks, is a bit different, there is some strategy there. And it looks cool.

No, I like Total War. I like running an empire, I like building things and getting the economy cranking; and I like fighting battles. But not at the same time! But if you like RTSs, well, good for you. Just not my style.

8th Sep 2004, 05:39
go to the world cyber games web-site, and see some replays, those guys who play starcraft and age of mythology are freaking FREAKS at strategy games, they know the ins and outs.

12th Sep 2004, 19:49
When was the last time it took a Medieval king a year to recruit 40 Archers?

Real Time as in, no turns. Ten seconds to you means the game also moves on ten seconds instead of pressing the end turn button you just keep going. Time doesn'st stop when it rolls around to your turn, hence Real Time.

What you describe in your Starcraft thing, is not medieval strategy and tactics, it is Starcraft strategy and tactics. It is still strategy, it is still tactics, it is just not the same as in other games, that doesn't make it null. When you play Poker, you don't use medieval tactics, you use Poker tactics.

You lost because you refused to play by the games rules, its like telling your archers to charge cavalry.