View Full Version : With out an online Campaign this game will fail.

27th Feb 2005, 19:32
Rome total war, Medieval Total War, Shogun Total War, are all great games, but they suffer from one fatal flaw, no online campaign.

My brother and I were excited about Rome Total War online. Sadly, we played it a total of 4 times, because we had grown so bored of it.

Developers claim a multiplayer campaign cant be done, that seems like a cop out, if one would just sit down for a couple of minutes and think about it, it could be easily accomplished.

Why not just make it a head to head game, 1v1? Even that would be far more interesting than having to play the A.I. in singleplayer.

27th Feb 2005, 19:46
at first i thouht, you know it WOULD be easy to do a multiplayer campaign, and then i saw complications(everyone would have to wait until the battle is over(in MTW that can take up to half hour)) but then i thought, they COULD do 1 player verses another player campaigns(no computers all spaces are occupied by one army or the other). The only one of those games i know is MTW so ill use it. The time you have to move your army and stuff could be limited and the players would have to decide if it is commanded or automatically resolved(if they decide differently then the computer could"roll a dice" and see where it goes.

But still there are minor problems, such as everything would have to be in real time, but we can survive that, and im sure there are other complications. I myself live far away from society and therefore have dial-up internet, so i dont know if i would be able to play the multi-player campaigns anyways

28th Feb 2005, 00:25
Oprah must of ate your brain also. This WAS dissucussed. Here: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=46143&highlight=Campaign And here: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=45341&highlight=Campaign And Here: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=42031&highlight=Campaign
Use the search button.

28th Feb 2005, 00:25
Sorry to hear about your baby Oprah...but really game failure without multi campaign? Like Shogun/Mongols/Medieval/Vikings? (all with-out a multi campaige and all miserable failures)......why do people insist on such a thing? Not had enough of the ten-year-olds that quit half way though a single battle? I guess some-how people doing days long campaigns games with 100's of battles will all stay connected, and noone will quit or even flame each other, or accuse each other of cheating.......I just dont understand why so many people want to take a realistic tactical combat simulation and turn it into a turn based stratagy game. I'm not interested in the single-player at all just the multi-player battles.http://dreadmastersclan.com/Hidden%20files/deadppl_e0_13201kind.gif
Also (must add) if the games like A O E or Cossacks (and thus not a realistic tactical combat simulation) I wont be getting it.

28th Feb 2005, 07:27
That whole thing about games taking too long on the internet is nuts! Look at hearts of Iron 2, with 4 players on normal speed the game takes around 60 hours to play, I have seen entire campaigns played out over the internet with just random players. Look at victoria, it would take you about 200 hours to complete an online victoria game, and yet, it has been done, numerous times. This games still have very prosperous multiplayer communities eager to start new games.

Shogun/ Midieval/ Rome they all sold well, but how many still play the former 2? A token few, and even Rome total wars online community is declining, it can only be fun for so long you know.

2nd Mar 2005, 03:18
your not understanding the problem

Victoria and Hearts of Iron is in real time. TW and this game are turned based. Think about it this way. WHen your playing a single player campaign you don't want to watch the ai vs ai battles.

So if your playing with 4 ppl lets say and your player 1

then when player 2 and 3 get into a battle (which like templari said) will take over half an hour, you and player 4 will be forced to watch, because unlike in single player it won't autocalc the battles, you'll have to sit there and watch them, and do nothing for 30 + min.

And it will be extreamly boring and tedious to play, having to watch every single battle, that someone is involved in.

Its just too complicated to do and not worth it.

Like i said since Victoria and Hearts of Iron (and any other paradox game) are in real time, then it works.

2nd Mar 2005, 16:26
Been discussed serveral times before...but once again. I support the feature and hope that it gets included.....if not, I'm disapointed, but not suprised. Would love to have the feature though..it would be the main one, if it got put in.

Long Live Prussia!

6th Mar 2005, 05:02
Acutally, I just remembered a game called SuperPower 2.

An online game that could support up to 10 players, in it, when a battle occured an explosion would appear on the map marking the place of battle. Clicking on the explosion would then switch to the battle screen, and you could watch the battle play out, right clicking would go back to the world map mode. With a little bit of ingenuity an online campaign can be made, but developers are lazy, I guess they figure, what's the point?

6th Mar 2005, 16:19
was it a turn-based game, or can you just keep moving armies around and building stuff while they are fighting?

3rd Apr 2005, 03:26
will there be campaigns like napoleonic battle for austria napoleon wellington like key battles mad eg.. austirlitz waterloo mesina quatre bras and others it would be sweet