v 1.10 question

[Mgellis]

I noticed that the multiplayer capability is listed as "Up to two players, PvP (head to head) or PvE (coop)."

Does this mean that, along with head to head scenarios (e.g., my two submarines vs. your four frigates), you can also have scenarios that are something like...

My surface group +
Your land-based squadron

vs.

Computer side: Enemy task force that must be intercepted and destroyed

???

(Yes, I'm already brainstorming ideas for my next hundred or so scenarios...)

[Kushan04]

It can be any combination you want; head to head, two allied sides (one for each player) vs AI, or two players on the same side vs the AI.

[HalfLifeExpert]

I believe it can be that & more, Mark.

The only real limitation is only two players, it seems.

[Mgellis]

It can be any combination you want; head to head, two allied sides (one for each player) vs AI, or two players on the same side vs the AI.

So, two players could share control of one side? Would that simply be any commands, missions, etc. requested by either player would go through (i.e., the same side can be controlled by two separate computers/people)?

That's interesting...it would let you design longer scenarios...limited to real time play, 12 hours might be a bit much for one player, but if different players can take alternating shifts, maybe 2 hours at a time, you could do it.

Lots of interesting possibilities here.

[Kushan04]

So, two players could share control of one side? Would that simply be any commands, missions, etc. requested by either player would go through (i.e., the same side can be controlled by two separate computers/people)?

Both players can be on the same side, issuing orders to the same units. They would have to de-conflict, to make sure they're not both tasking the same units with different orders. The easiest would be for the players to determine whose going to control air units and the other maritime units, or whatever. IMO easier to just create two separate allied sides but that's just me.

[HalfLifeExpert]

It can be any combination you want; head to head, two allied sides (one for each player) vs AI, or two players on the same side vs the AI.

So, two players could share control of one side? Would that simply be any commands, missions, etc. requested by either player would go through (i.e., the same side can be controlled by two separate computers/people)?

That's interesting...it would let you design longer scenarios...limited to real time play, 12 hours might be a bit much for one player, but if different players can take alternating shifts, maybe 2 hours at a time, you could do it.

Lots of interesting possibilities here.

I think it's important to clarify what's meant by "side".

Two players can be on the same side, in the sense of their two "sides" are allied to each-other (like in the official scenario Shamal, 1991). It's not two players controlling one "side" as in how Command defines it, mechanically, speaking.

So in this context, for example, let's take the historical Battle of Midway from the US side (the Japanese would be the AI).

You could have one player side be designated TF-16/17, for the 3x carriers and their escorts, and the other player side be for the bases/aircraft on Midway Island.

Alternatively, you could have one player command TF-16 (Enterprise & Hornet), the other command TF-17 (Yorktown) to reflect the historical separate commanders of Spruance & Fletcher, with Midway Is. forces being allied AI.

That's the sort of Co-op sides we're talking about here.

[blu3s]

It can be any combination you want; head to head, two allied sides (one for each player) vs AI, or two players on the same side vs the AI.

So, two players could share control of one side? Would that simply be any commands, missions, etc. requested by either player would go through (i.e., the same side can be controlled by two separate computers/people)?

That's interesting...it would let you design longer scenarios...limited to real time play, 12 hours might be a bit much for one player, but if different players can take alternating shifts, maybe 2 hours at a time, you could do it.

Lots of interesting possibilities here.

I think it's important to clarify what's meant by "side".

Two players can be on the same side, in the sense of their two "sides" are allied to each-other (like in the official scenario Shamal, 1991). It's not two players controlling one "side" as in how Command defines it, mechanically, speaking.

So in this context, for example, let's take the historical Battle of Midway from the US side (the Japanese would be the AI).

You could have one player side be designated TF-16/17, for the 3x carriers and their escorts, and the other player side be for the bases/aircraft on Midway Island.

Alternatively, you could have one player command TF-16 (Enterprise & Hornet), the other command TF-17 (Yorktown) to reflect the historical separate commanders of Spruance & Fletcher, with Midway Is. forces being allied AI.

That's the sort of Co-op sides we're talking about here.

Please, read what Kushan stated two times since you are not understanding it.

It can be any combination you want; head to head, two allied sides (one for each player) vs AI, or two players on the same side vs the AI.

Both players can be on the same side, issuing orders to the same units. They would have to de-conflict, to make sure they're not both tasking the same units with different orders. The easiest would be for the players to determine whose going to control air units and the other maritime units, or whatever. IMO easier to just create two separate allied sides but that's just me.

He is talking about Command sides, so units under the same side can be controlled by two players

[HalfLifeExpert]

So, two players could share control of one side? Would that simply be any commands, missions, etc. requested by either player would go through (i.e., the same side can be controlled by two separate computers/people)?

That's interesting...it would let you design longer scenarios...limited to real time play, 12 hours might be a bit much for one player, but if different players can take alternating shifts, maybe 2 hours at a time, you could do it.

Lots of interesting possibilities here.

I think it's important to clarify what's meant by "side".

Two players can be on the same side, in the sense of their two "sides" are allied to each-other (like in the official scenario Shamal, 1991). It's not two players controlling one "side" as in how Command defines it, mechanically, speaking.

So in this context, for example, let's take the historical Battle of Midway from the US side (the Japanese would be the AI).

You could have one player side be designated TF-16/17, for the 3x carriers and their escorts, and the other player side be for the bases/aircraft on Midway Island.

Alternatively, you could have one player command TF-16 (Enterprise & Hornet), the other command TF-17 (Yorktown) to reflect the historical separate commanders of Spruance & Fletcher, with Midway Is. forces being allied AI.

That's the sort of Co-op sides we're talking about here.

Please, read what Kushan stated two times since you are not understanding it.

It can be any combination you want; head to head, two allied sides (one for each player) vs AI, or two players on the same side vs the AI.

Both players can be on the same side, issuing orders to the same units. They would have to de-conflict, to make sure they're not both tasking the same units with different orders. The easiest would be for the players to determine whose going to control air units and the other maritime units, or whatever. IMO easier to just create two separate allied sides but that's just me.

He is talking about Command sides, so units under the same side can be controlled by two players

Ah, so I was wrong!

This would mean that, technically, any scenario could be played coop then, right? (At least as long as the player side had more than one unit).

[Kushan04]

This would mean that, technically, any scenario could be played coop then, right? (At least as long as the player side had more than one unit).

Yes, any scenario can be played in MP. The only major caveat is any scenario that need to be played a certain way in order to tell a story are not going to play best in MP, for example the Ford DLC or any of the Tides of War scenarios.

[scott1393]

seems to me that if your playing 2 v AI the players would want/need to decide who would control what. my thought would be something like 1 player takes the cv and its air wing the other player takes the escorts/subs and maybe land based aircraft. then they would/could coordinate air strike missions etc.. just a couple of thoughts.

scott