What SoWGB needs for dynamic interesting multiplayer

[Garnier]

NY Cavalry wrote:

Civil War battles became very defensive. The game reflects this. Maybe in some way it can be organized where one side has an advantage in men. The one with the large force is the obvious aggressor. Fewer troops go on the defensive.

Why should anyone attack without some incentive? Obviously you could make deals with your friends in game about who attacks, but I'm talking about people who are just trying to win.

I am no expert, but this game is very realistic. They have done a real good job. Players will eventually develop, some to offensive tactics some only to defensive.

It is realistic, but unfortunately a truly realistic civil war game will become boring. The reason the civil war was not entirely defensive trench warfare was because the of the commanders. Players have all the time they need to learn exactly what's best to do. If we want the game to play out like real civil war battles did, it can't be realistic, because the players know better than to do the stupid things they did in real life.

[GShock]

It is undeniable that CSA did not trouble themselves with being arrayed against a vastly superior foe, it was always like that. Still, if it could move and advance it was because of emptiness ahead. Giving battle, when and where is the goal of every general.

Here we could move either on historical reproductions (such as, play from scenario day 1 to the last scenario of the last day, then sum up the score and see who has won) or move on a totally new ground. I suppose if the log can hold the losses a script could help generate a new scenario following the first one and including the casualties. I know it's not so easy to code, but surely it's easier than doing a single player campaign because these calculations do not involve the AI at all.

As of the camper bombing the camping attacker, we suppose that when the arty is fixed, the side with better artillery will silence the opponent's guns. I do not really know how this MP works, really but I guess score accumulates over time. Why should the attacker camp if the defender is gaining score AND there is a time limit? If the attacker camps then even if the defender is fully routed his score might not be sufficient to beat the routed defender... maybe I am missing something?

I want to underline, Garnier, that all your proposals are good imo. The more preferences can be set at the match start, the better. I personally favor historicity (so it's all in the hands of the scenario makers) but indeed freedom of choice is what makes the game enjoyable to everyone.

As of the polling, we just started the discussion, of course it will take some time to develop it and gather all proposals from, hopefully, hundreds of players. All in due time.

[duncan]

Garnier wrote:

Why in reality armies don't behave as you mention ?

Real war is extremely boring, I and most others who play games in our little free time do not want real war.

Absurd. Who said we want real war by implementing a campaign system ?
The analogy was there to explain the reasons why camping doesn't exist in reality and that we could take example from reality to implement right mechanisms in a game when they enhance the gameplay rather than creating some virtual mechanisms, though both solutions can be applied according your preferences.

[Garnier]

I do not really know how this MP works, really but I guess score accumulates over time. Why should the attacker camp if the defender is gaining score AND there is a time limit? If the attacker camps then even if the defender is fully routed his score might not be sufficient to beat the routed defender... maybe I am missing something?

I think that's how it works but there are several problems. Most importantly, the defender can hold ONE position to win, and this position is impregnable if the defender is smart enough, he just forms a semicircle and it is a mini gettysburg: suicide for the attacker. There need to be an odd number of objectives (3 or more) to force the defender to spread out to hold them, and allowing for back and forth swapping of roles.

Second, the points are not a real advantage during the battle. They are not something the players can immediately grasp the importance of, and they do not help the player win except at the very end. I don't feel like I'm losing anything by taking a long time getting ready to attack, whereas if the defender was getting a real advantage like ammunition, I would. The points system is indeed necessary but it isn't enough on its own.

The analogy was there to explain the reasons why camping doesn't exist in reality

But it does. Battles take a long time in reality. Eventually someone attacks, but it's almost always for reasons that we cannot replicate in a single battle.

[NY Cavalry]

My point previously was, just that it is agreed, the defender has an advantage. Some games could become static. That was what civil war battles ended up being like. Though, Jackson always looked for the offensive. He looked for advantage and then exploited it. To win you must move (offensively) to defeat the opponent.
If some players need an objective or a way to score points, then so be it. I don't care about scores or points or to win "the game"(by some point system). I like the reality of this civil war game and just enjoy playing it. For me, I don't need points. Destruction of the foe and keeping my force in decent condition is good enough for me.

NY Cav


I'm not being argumentative. I'm sure the game designers will do what they need to do to accommodate the players of this game. I don't think they sleep. They seem to be always working.

[Garnier]

Sure, there are players like you who simply enjoy recreating history and don't care if it works as a competitive game. That's great, and there's nothing wrong with it; people like different things.

[norb]

I'm not going to comment on the individual issues, but I do want to say that we have not even cracked the surface of our plans for MP. But I'm always the type of guy that builds the foundation first, and makes sure there are not cracks, before I put up the walls. MP has tons of room to grow and we'll keep adding more features, to the game, to the lobby, there's just so much we want to do. I cut a bunch of stuff out because I knew that just getting a solid base was enough work, without all the added bells and whistles. Even now we still have connection issues, still have issues with too many players, things that need to be fixed before it can grow.

[Roberdeau Ch. Wheat]

Garnier wrote:

(...) however there are also a lot of people including myself who have fun by trying to win. Whether I win or lose, I don't enjoy games where I'm not trying to win.

I am one of these too. Maybe I expressed myself not clear enough. But when I am attacking (and sooner or later I always do that in a mp game) and I am not strong enough to drive the opponent, I will fall back and await his counterattack. If it’s not coming, I will rest and rally my men and will try it again. Maybe I will not win this time, but in the end I enjoyed at least my part of the mp game.

And currently the best way to try to win is to defend high ground and not attack, which is realistic but quickly gets boring. Currently, if all players are equally skilled, the side that defends has a realistic huge advantage. So why should anyone who is trying to win attack.

Maybe you are right. But I have yet to see and experience this kind of scenario which you described above. Besides that I still think the best way to win is to play offensively.

The question is, would you truly have less fun playing games with the objective system I described?

Not at all, as long as I have the opportunity for a good fight (offensive or defensive) with my brig, div or whatever, I will enjoy the mp game with or without objectives. I just said that imho objectives are not essential for a good mp game experience in SOWGB.

[Garnier]

norb wrote:

I'm not going to comment on the individual issues, but I do want to say that we have not even cracked the surface of our plans for MP. But I'm always the type of guy that builds the foundation first, and makes sure there are not cracks, before I put up the walls. MP has tons of room to grow and we'll keep adding more features, to the game, to the lobby, there's just so much we want to do. I cut a bunch of stuff out because I knew that just getting a solid base was enough work, without all the added bells and whistles. Even now we still have connection issues, still have issues with too many players, things that need to be fixed before it can grow.

Of course the stability patch and enabling multiplayer mods are higher priority.

Hopefully we'll eventually have a way to script gameplay mechanics like this into sandbox mode for a mod. American Conquest did this perfectly by exposing a C++ interface in a DLL. I doubt you'd ever do that unfortunately, but eventually letting modders create game modes like this one way or another will unleash the possibilities, and the players will end up playing what works best.

[GShock]

Garnier wrote:

I think that's how it works but there are several problems. Most importantly, the defender can hold ONE position to win, and this position is impregnable if the defender is smart enough, he just forms a semicircle and it is a mini gettysburg: suicide for the attacker. There need to be an odd number of objectives (3 or more) to force the defender to spread out to hold them, and allowing for back and forth swapping of roles.

There's a factor not to neglect, the artillery: We have manual targeting here.

You can decide where to concentrate fire and a semicircle will just not always do. Arty will be fixed with shrapnel and shell damage and also the firearms will be modded. You send a better regiment against the weaker spot and you'll crack a hole that a semicircle can't always cover.

One thing is as it is now with a regiment shooting 10 minutes against the other and minimal losses implied. Another is when it takes 5 minutes to rout an opponent... there won't always be time to cover that gap in time.

There's also the leadership of generals involved. Many factors that will take time to be finetuned, modded, perfected. Certainly studying the opponent's OOB will tell which regiment is strong or weak so, perhaps even if ahistorical, some randomization would help (but i presume it's about scenario making). This with scenario making is a double edged sword. I think maps and oobs should be validated by the DEV team to make sure they are screened, finetuned properly and then inserted into the game officially or we risk to have 100 different gettysburg games (but it's secondary right now we are still at 1.0).

Second, the points are not a real advantage during the battle. They are not something the players can immediately grasp the importance of, and they do not help the player win except at the very end. I don't feel like I'm losing anything by taking a long time getting ready to attack, whereas if the defender was getting a real advantage like ammunition, I would. The points system is indeed necessary but it isn't enough on its own.

Realistic settings can give a big helping hand here. If you can "remotely" manouver unseen on the enemy the time you take could prove fatal for a camping defender who does not react accordingly. Unfortunately, things being what they are right now, with those settings you can't manouver "remotely" because you couldn't see the spots to move them to from your commander's location. Still, and again about scenario making, perhaps the scoring system is not balanced to prize the attacker properly. I'm sure our community will make this game 100 times better in due time.