Multi-player questions

[norb]

JC Edwards wrote:

Speaking of that Battle HQ Norb, I downloaded it some time back and for the life of me could not get it to work. Any tips on how to control the little buggar?

Did you create a new user account?

[JC Edwards]

Yes. I'm not sure what, if anything, I may have set up wrong but I will give it another try and let you know what happens.

[UglyElmo]

There may be another way to handle battles that were one-sided numbers-wise: In given MP historic scenarios you could have different objectives for the Union and Confederate armies.

1. It could be point-based: Where you must hold certain VPs on the map for a given time. It could be balanced by having the underdog only have to hold 2 VPs whereas the bigger army would have to hold 3 VPs.

2. If VP areas give you points for each time interval you hold it (seconds/minutes etc.) the games could be balanced by having the underdog have to acquire less points than the bigger army.

3. If a purchase point system was used in selecting armies it may be easier to balance the MP sides, but you might also lose the historic flavor (as well as the OOBs) of the game (which is very important to many a player from what I have read here and at the MadMinute forums).

There are many possibilities for balancing while still keeping the original OOBs:

1. Maybe give the commanding units certain abilities based on their historic personality traits (some were good defenders, some good attackers, some good morale boosters . . etc). These could be portrayed by use of some sort of bonus for the troops under these men's command. On the other hand you could give negative bonuses for those under a commander who may have not done very well in his previous battles, or who showed some type of personality flaw or who was unskilled at defending/attacking/morale boosting.

2. You may also consider keeping the original OOBs but give points to each player to purchase reinforcement units outside the normal OOB. It would be a hybrid "what-if" type of MP battle then, while keeping the atmosphere and flavor of the historic battle itself.

3. You might also play around with reinforcement timing. Give the smaller army more units in the beginning which might allow them to gain the objectives first, dig-in, then try to hold off the larger army from the VP. The larger army, knowing the enemy army begins with more troops, would have to work out a strategy for overcoming the bad start by slowing down the enemy advance and saving his men (and the upcoming reinforc ements) for a later thrust into the enemy VP areas.

These are just a few ideas which could help with balance. Though at first, I would be completely satisfied with just being able to play MP against other people using the historic OOBs (balance be damned!). hehe

Lastly, I tend towards long posts when I am interested/excited about a favorite PC game of mine . . maybe have a ladder for each scenario available for MP. Keeping track of both the Union player's points and the Rebel player's points to compare with other players who have played the same scenarios.

[estabu2]

All very interesting/good ideas!! I really like the 2nd one, sounds like something from SMG.

[norb]

These are all great ideas, but I have to focus on just getting things working for now. That's just how I work, I can't worry about too many things at once so I break it into parts. First part is to get MP running with an oob file, any oob. When I do that, then I'll look at adding the candy to the game. But my goal for this game is just getting solid MP for 2+ players working flawlessly.

[herofailscaptive]

Elmo,

Great ideas! i agree with several of them. But, of course I would like to keep these multiplayer games as historcial as possible. (In Command structure and objective)

Norb,

If you can offer a multiplayer game with only 2 people, I will be satisfied. the more the better. We all understand the efforts that this takes. Im just glad to see so many people interested in a Civil War era game. Wish you all the best of success with this game.

[Hancock the Superb]

I don't care if there is a multiplayer or not.

Just get on with the game and deal with that later.

[norb]

I've promised MP, so I'm going to deliver. It's a hurdle that I must cross. It's one of the hardest things to do because it's impossible to exactly recreate the bugs. But once it's in and tested and working it can go very far!

[UglyElmo]

. . . and then the MP game has to be played by us knuckleheads who have quite the talent in breaking our new toys! :laugh:

I definitely am not trying to rush you Norb. I am one who is willing to wait until the game is ready for the public in your opinion. I just enjoy knocking ideas around and at my age, if I don't express them right away, I may have a senior moment and forget them . . along with my password to this forum!

As I stated earlier, I too would be satisfied with playing MP whos sides are determined solely by adhering to the game's official OOB.

In the meantime, I still have my multitude of Civ IV, Combat Mission, and Medieval 2 Total War PBEMs to keep me busy. Along with the several Dragongo Server online Japanese Go matches to play.

Kind of funny a good ole Kentucky Hillbilly like myself playing a game mostly played by the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese. Though I have found common ground: Japanese Saki is almost comparable, in potency, to my moonshine.

[estabu2]

norb wrote:

But my goal for this game is just getting solid MP for 2+ players working flawlessly.

2+ MP:unsure: , I thought this game was going to be Massive Multiplayer. I thought we were going to be able to start as a private and fight the big battle in line and move our way up to general. I was thinking something like 125,000 person multiplayer:ohmy: . You know so we could fight the battles historically accurate.

hehe