Feedback Request: Multiplayer

[Clx-]

This is not so hard to do, it's just that I need to see if this is the direction we should take. I'm uneasy about ahistorical scenarios.

I understand why - I'm somewhat obsessive about historical accuracy in WWII games - but it really would add a lot of extra re-playability.

[Sixthe9th]

And what about implementing MP campaign which would start with historical resources, but with both defending sides losing units permanently during the battles, so the divisions destroyed would not appear in next scenario. That could be a quite interesting hardcore mode a real war of attrition. The only reinforcements and replacements could be taken from limited supply reserve.

It could also be cool to include what if scenarios. As you mentioned with the case of Wintergewitter.

[ironbmike]

I have the game and love it, but my friend is on the fence and really wants it for MP (so we can play each other). However, is there only one MP scenario? Will this be changing soon? We don't want to get the game just to find out there is only one scenario

[Tomislav Uzelac]

Hi!

We don't want to get the game just to find out there is only one scenario

Yes, there is only one "true MP" scenario, but you can also play single player scenarios over the internet.

The issue is, these scenarios are not symmetrical, one of the players has to defend and his mission is basically to prevent the other guy's victory or at least lower the score. In practice, people often play a scenario twice, with switched sides, in a kind of "paired match".

I am working on some more MP scenarios, but given that <10% people seem to be playing multiplayer, it's on the back burner slightly right now.

[metolius]

More multiplayer scenarios, please!

Also, how about making it possible to play the 'campaigns' in a multiplayer mode?

[Tomislav Uzelac]

More multiplayer scenarios, please!

I can confirm there will be 4 multiplayer scenarios in the expansion.

But also, with the scenario editor, you can make as many as you like

[eliw00d]

Any chance that multiplayer could eventually have more than 2 players? Maybe something like 2v2?

[Mikethk]

Do there have to be a scenario?

Im really looking for a more equally start option, is this possible?

[spillblood]

I found I was playing differently in multiplayer - instead of puzzling out the thrust/combos that get you a BV, attrition played a bigger role - try to eliminate the powerful enemy units just to get a win before the last turn.

I agree, this is especially true for the PvP scenarios. BTW, one thing I found was lacking from multiplayer: An option to surrender or premature end when some side loses ALL units. If one side is eliminated the game just goes on until the turn limit has been reached. This can be pretty pointless.
Another idea that would only make sense in multiplayer: What about some multiplayer scenarios that are much bigger and cover a wider sector of the front? These wouldn't be manageable for the AI, but they'd work in multiplayer.
EDIT: Tried out online play with my brother today, this time a couple of singleplayer scenarios (Zhitomir, 3rd Kharkov, Stalingrad, Uranus) including one community scenario (Spring Awakening). I think at the moment SP scenarios work a bit better in Multiplayer. And I don't mind playing the defender. Some of those games were pretty tense. Please add more PvP scenarios and refine PvP a bit more! Multiplayer is great because like in Frozen Synapse the games don't take ages which is better suited for MP than say for examples scenarios of War in the East (which can be played via Play-by-E-Mail though).

[Tomislav Uzelac]

one thing I found was lacking from multiplayer: An option to surrender

There is an option to surrender in the menu. Surrender all you want