What type of Team Play?

[Arjuna]

One of the BIG features on our wish list is Team Play - the ability to have multiple players on each side. Essentially there are are two approaches we could take.

The first is hierarchical, where one player would be the senior commander for the side and others players would be subordinates. The senior commander would then give orders and resources to the subordinates and they would be responsible for implementing them. Under this approach we could be either restrive in what we allow the superior to do - eg. prevent the senior commander from issuing orders to units under the direct command of a subordinate unless the unit is first detached. Alternatively we could allow the senior commander to issue orders without restriction.

The other approach is co-operative, where all players on a side are deemed equal and the forces divied up amongst them. The only way units could be transferred between players would be with their consent.

So which approach would you prefer?

[EricGuitarJames]

I'd prefer hierarchical, would be fun trying to persuade subordinates to part with their artillery resources for example. Co-op play would require a great deal of trust between players, something I can see breaking down in the heat of battle[:D]

[Rooster]

I've thought about this and decided I'll be happy either way. But here's my preference:

It may be more realistic for a game like this to be cooperatively played. I've played a lot of cooperative Age of Empires it is very easy to assign team objectives and work to achieve them. In playing that way, we often elected a leader who could demand or request certain things of other players. It was often the only way to win.

By making it a cooperative game, you could conceivably have it both ways.

[Cap Mandrake]

Another vote for subordination

[Smirfy]

I think both would be positive but the chain of command would as a previous poster be alot of fun and focus the players more on the strategic objective of each scenario, rather than destroying all enemy units.

[Error in 0]

Maybe I make problems of thin air, but would not everybody want to be the top commander? I think that having a flat structure is easier, and if you precede the game with a short mandatory chief-of-staff meeting where each team decide on their mutual goals, all would focus on the same objectives. Thats why I voted cooperative play [:)]



JT

[MadScot]

There's no "neither" option on the poll.

Sorry, but I don't want it. I'd hate to see its implementation be the focus of the game, or one of the versions. Plenty of other good ideas, and even some good games, have suffered horribly from taking the eye off the solo player ball to reach for the holy grail of MP. Civ3 "Play The World" is a particularly noteworthy example.

Once you've finished doing all the other stuff, please, not before.

[Error in 0]

What other stuff are you reffering to? I was surprised how well done the game was.



JT

[Smirfy]

I don't see the feature interfering with solo play. If ever I seen a system suited to co-op play it was this one

[CriticalMass]

I'm kind of siding with MadScot here, only in that I don't see a huge H2H community so I don't see where we will benefit devoting so much development time to cooperative play over supply et al. Yes, I'm guilty of "I want to decisively defeat the AI ALL the time before I even think about Yakstock".

Saying that if I could be assured that the "other stuff" wouldn't suffer I'd go for hierachal [psst both please!!!].

[marc420]

Well, typically I play against the AI, so improvements there would be my first choice.

As for team play, the option I really wanted was "Both". I can see times where each would be interesting. A hierarchial team could be fun, with various sub commmanders.

But I could also see some scenarios where Co-operative would be the way to go. Perhaps a three-way game where one player commands the Germans, one the para's and the third player takes 30 corps.

It would be fun to see the "hurry up" messages coming from the paras to the 30 corps. And maybe the "is my bridge still there" messages from 30 corps back to the paras.

[Smirfy]

Those are the kind of scenarios I had in mind if it could be done

[Marc von Martial]

I would like both [;)]

[MadScot]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne
What other stuff are you reffering to? I was surprised how well done the game was.

The wish list thread has about 4 pages ... it's not people asking for multiplay 100 times, I'm sure.

And examples of interfering with solo - well, other than bugs as a direct result of the multiplay code either messing up or totally wrecking the whole game, you have the development effort which could delay the release of games. Plus crappy online or print reviews of the multiplay damaging sales because people think the whole game is bad - look at the Civ3 PTW reviews - they were brutal, yet the basic solo game worked pretty well. But the reviewers all fixated on the fact that the big new feature, H2H, was a fiasco. Could have killed off the line - it would do for a small company, I think.

Then there's compromised design decisions to keep the game moving - well, THIS way is more realistic but isn't well suited to H2H so lets do THIS instead. End result, eventually, is yet another RTS click-fest. I'm not saying it would end up that bad, but it would skew all design decisions of the whole game.

While I would buy a new game to get a new feature I wanted, I would avoid a release which was "last game plus multiplay" altogether. I'd rather replay an old game than shell out for something I don't want.

Sorry to be so forthright, but I really see this as a misdirected effort.

[JudgeDredd]

Not really keen on multiplayer stuff either......nice to see a fellow "solo player" in da house![;)]

[Arjuna]

MadScot,

Don't hav any fears about adverse effects on single player mode. When we laid down the design back in 1995/6 we knew we would want to one day incorproate Team Play ( remember we already have H2H multiplayer ). So we built into the basic structure the hooks for implementing the Team Play feature. That is not to say that it won't be a BIG job to implement, but doing so should not adversely impact on the single player mode. On the contrary, it will open up other possibilities.

It should be able for instance to play just one Command in a Team Player game, where all the other Commands are played by the AI. In other words you would be able to have a single player game or say the Breakout from Joe's Bridge, where you are just the Irish Gds commander. The rest of 30th Corps being run by the AI. You would get your orders from the AI controlled Gds Arm Div. Now that could be fun.[:)]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

...It should be able for instance to play just one Command in a Team Player game, where all the other Commands are played by the AI. In other words you would be able to have a single player game or say the Breakout from Joe's Bridge, where you are just the Irish Gds commander. The rest of 30th Corps being run by the AI. You would get your orders from the AI controlled Gds Arm Div. Now that could be fun.[:)]

Are you insinuating that the AI will be good enough for me to accept the fact it's telling me to attack the left flank when I think the right flank is riper? That's a big boast....and if you say that's the case, then I'm up for it.

BUT...alot of people have said that HTTR AI is pretty simple once you work at it...and that H2H is where it's great strength is......so is the AI going to be good enough to make the right decisions on the battlefield? If it is, then watch out...the military might well be interested!!

[Smirfy]

That would be Fun[:)]

[Willard]

Hierarchical for me!!!
But I'll take co-operative also!!!

I have mentioned this before, but HTTR would be awesome in this mode. Having played Sid Meier's Gettysburg alot, team play is the way to go...and the HTTR engine would be perfect for it.

[JeF]

Though Hierarchical seems more realistic, Co-operative would be the best. Players are not (yet) enlisted in a military organisation. There is no hierarchy.

Co-operative will be the funniest and the easiest.
And couldn't it be flexible enough to allow (and not force) a hierarchical approach, where one player is the top commander, with only the highest HQ and some artillery assests. By aggreements between players, the top commander give them orders. But it's their choice, they are not forced by the game.

My 2 cents,

JeF.