Multiplayer???

[Sorrow_Knight]

Will be there any kind of MP?

[Veitikka]

ORIGINAL: Sorrow_Knight

Will be there any kind of MP?

No plans for it.

[Sorrow_Knight]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

No plans for it.

And why? I know, that you are very proud with AI in Armored Brigade... but it is much more interesting, when there is alive opponent against you. than AI whatever advanced it is.

[Veitikka]

Why C:MANO or Graviteam Tactics don't have multiplayer? Is it because the developers are incompetent or nasty? It can be hard to explain to someone who's not a software developer why I haven't used my time to make an application that communicates in real-time over the Web with other client systems. It's as simple as clicking a checkbox to enable the feature, right? Not quite like that, especially if the piece of software hasn't been built with multiplayer in mind since the start. I've been coding this game alone for 14 years without getting any money for it, and so far there's been enough tasks even without the multiplayer aspect.

[Sorrow_Knight]

Please, don`t be so offensive. I can realise, that coding is not simple task, especially for one person. But... well... I just want to say, that... it is not good for CMANO ar Graviteam games that there is not MP at all, i dont want to say, that devs are nasty or something else like that, but after couple dozens of hours in game even very average wargame player like me will be able to beat AI quite easy and with minimal loses (your AI looks more advanced, so I should think about couple of days, but result against AI only will be the same- it would be beaten and there will be less interest to play the game). I don`t want to blame you here, but... think about MP in your game, it will greatly expand its replayability.

[JiminyJickers]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

ORIGINAL: Sorrow_Knight

Will be there any kind of MP?

No plans for it.

Thank you for focussing on single player first and foremost. I'm really excited for this game.

[Searry]

I hope multiplayer will be #1 thing you focus on after release. That will be the real seller for me.

[CSO_Talorgan]

ORIGINAL: JiminyJickers

Thank you for focussing on single player first and foremost. I'm really excited for this game.

+1

[Hexagon]

Multiplayer for me is a bonus but an AI you can leave alone without a continuous babysitting is basic in a real time wargame.

I prefer improve AI, add some extra features, improve UI and official expansion in armies-periods and when game is solid for solo players move to multiplayer area.

In the end in my case if i plan play multiplayer i am going to do it in turns not real time.

[varangy]

Theres not only real time online battle, you can play PBEM as well and you dont have to babysit. This is the mode I prefer.

We already have the turns, just need to find a solution about storing the tings and happenings.

CM did it, I played against other guys in PBEM and it was great.

[Sorrow_Knight]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Multiplayer for me is a bonus but an AI you can leave alone without a continuous babysitting is basic in a real time wargame.

For me, playing against AI in any kind of wargame is nothing more than extended tutorial mode. Real human as opponent is the only real challenge that you could meet, and no AI able to be any challenging... at least for any long time.

[Hexagon]

Well, is a question of priorities, i rare times play multi, not because i dislike it, simple is a question of timing... if wargame is not turn based is practically impossible play VS a human, i prefer PBEM because you play when you want-can but problem is you could be forced to leave battle in the middle this is why i am more in single player, i dont like leave a battle in the middle.

Play VS humans is more and offer more [X(] situations and i think game could benefict when receive multiplayer BUT a good tactical AI and other game improvements (UI, new features, add missing nations) for me are first in my list.

[Veitikka]

Just out of curiosity... can you name real-time hardcore wargames that have an active multiplayer scene?

[A Canadian Cat]

Combat Mission is the closest - it has very little real time multi player the majority of its head to head play is turn based (PBEM - but not actually using email). There are several sites where you can find opponents and a thriving community of people playing against each other.

[varangy]

ORIGINAL: A Canadian Cat

Combat Mission is the closest - it has very little real time multi player the majority of its head to head play is turn based (PBEM - but not actually using email). There are several sites where you can find opponents and a thriving community of people playing against each other.

Yeah, CM

[Veitikka]

So they're actually not playing it in the real-time mode? In that case it doesn't count. Any other games?

[varangy]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

So they're actually not playing it in the real-time mode? In that case it doesn't count. Any other games?

In CM you can choose between pbem and real time. While the majority is playing pbem, some are playing real time as well.

[Sorrow_Knight]

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

Just out of curiosity... can you name real-time hardcore wargames that have an active multiplayer scene?

Close Combat and Combat Mission series. Both are hardcore wargames, both are real-time and both have multiplayer. CMANO and Graviteam Tactics, you’ve mention are good games, and I have both. But I didn’t play any of it for a long time already, Why? I played both CMANO and GTT untill I learned how to play, and then untill I won all scenarios couple of times, and then it become uninteresting just because I know what where and when AI will do and how to counter it, or in witch situation just to ignore or avoid its forces. On the other hand I’ve played thousands of hours in Combat Mission: Black Sea in multiplayer games.

[nikolas93TS]

The issue is that our turn based system is quite a simple system which I tend to describe as an essentially scripted auto-pause feature. By all intents and purposes it is our regular real-time engine under the hood, hence the equal difficulty in making turns re-playable and adding multiplayer. It was a single-player architecture from Day 1. While not an impossible feat, it would require a really significant codding effort. When I say significant, I think that probably teaching AI to use advanced combat techniques as hammer-and-anvil attacks or better flanking tactics without scripts would be likely faster and simpler to add.

Of course I would like multiplayer too, but given the current game condition I think adding multiplayer is something better suited for a hypothetical Armored Brigade 2, which would likely involve structural changes to the core engine and framework. That would also solve the issue of the client base, assuming single-player game proves itself on market. It is a fact that the silent majority of players in this particular gaming niche are still single-player only (as much as 90% of the game time), and the number of players we are likely to get with multiplayer simply isn't there to support it yet. That is likely why you have even big titles as C:MANO and Graviteam Tactics being single player.

[Sorrow_Knight]

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS
Of course I would like multiplayer too, but given the current game condition I think adding multiplayer is something better suited for a hypothetical Armored Brigade 2, which would likely involve structural changes to the core engine and framework.

Ok... for me in person, this mean that i just will wait untill AB2, or DLC for AB1 will be released with multiplayer, and not to buy AB1 at it`s release date. Singleplayer only game is interesting in first, maximum third time, and after that will just lay untouched for years. And whatever you will be able to teach AI it will not be able to replace real human as opponent.