Matrix Games Forums

With multiplayer for Command now in beta, I suppose we have to start thinking about how that affects scenario design. I suspect most scenarios written for Command so far are actually ill-suited for multiplayer. The sides are probably not balanced and the scenarios themselves may simply be too long if multiplayer is limited to real time gaming.

Instead, I think we may see two types of scenarios develop from now on: scenarios written for computer play and scenarios written for multiplayer. Some will be written with both in mind, but I suspect the differences between computer play and multiplayer play will make it easier to write specialized scenarios designed for one or the other, but not both.

I think one area where multiplayer will shine is smaller, shorter scenarios where each player controls a relatively small number of assets. When setting up an opposing side's tactics with the mission editor, some things (like responding to the player deciding to try something different) can be difficult. When you have people controlling both sides, the depth of tactical variation (for good or ill) becomes much greater.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think it makes the most sense for some scenarios to be written specifically for Multi-player, and they may actually be easier to create in some respects.

If you have a scenario with only two sides against each other, and other sides involved would just be civilians/biologics, making it MP only would cut down a lot of the work that is required to create the AI behavior for the opposing side.

Certainly, MP focused scenarios will have to be shorter than what Command scenarios often are, due to the inherent limitations of player's IRL time limitations on play-time, even with Time Compression options being allowed.

One existing scenario that would probably fit well for MP would be North Pacific Shootout, with a nominal time limit of only 6 hours (though I sometimes wish it lasted longer when I play it).

I don't think there needs to necessarily be any major design changes to the scenario to account for human opponent, as things like Fog of War are handled well.

BUT, I do think one thing can be done to eliminate a built-in unofficial "cheat" that exists in Command:

With the "Browse Scenario Platforms" screen you can see whether the opposing side has lost all of a certain platform (i.e. if you sank all enemy subs), as any platforms destroyed in totality will simply disappear from the list.

To counter-act this, both in regular play and in Multiplayer, the scenario builder could simply choose a random location on the other side of the planet, and place 1x of each platform in the scenario for each side, perhaps with all sensors destroyed, so that the Scenario Platforms list doesn't ever empty, so as to not reveal to the opposing side whether certain ships/subs/aircraft/ground units have actually been eliminated or not.

A similar trick would be to always include 1x aircraft of each type in "maintenance" loadout at airbases, so that the aircraft type is always listed in that list even if all of what the OPFOR nominally has is shot down.


I also think it would be very valuable to pursue Cooperative scenarios as well, in addition to adversarial ones. Having scenarios where two players have to cooperate against the enemy by controlling two similar forces, or different aspects of one side (i.e. one controls air forces, one controls a naval task force) would allow for very interesting gameplay dynamics.

The vast majority of two-sided scenarios have an easy side and a hard side. While this is an interesting decision for single-player, it makes multiplayer considerably more frustrating. North Pacific Shootout, for example, has a massive range advantage for American air units and the air defenses on their ships are significantly harder to penetrate than the Soviet ships. I essentially had to cheese the AI as the Soviets by keeping the radars off on my Foxhounds until they were basically in knife-fighting range but I get the idea that won't work against a human player.

Eboreg wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 11:31 pm The vast majority of two-sided scenarios have an easy side and a hard side. While this is an interesting decision for single-player, it makes multiplayer considerably more frustrating. North Pacific Shootout, for example, has a massive range advantage for American air units and the air defenses on their ships are significantly harder to penetrate than the Soviet ships. I essentially had to cheese the AI as the Soviets by keeping the radars off on my Foxhounds until they were basically in knife-fighting range but I get the idea that won't work against a human player.

Slight tangent, but that hasn't exactly been my experience, Chiefly, I found the Foxhounds to be a serious threat to my Phoenix-armed Tomcats

There should be an update for North Pacific Shootout in the next release that makes it better compatible with MP. There's no changes to the forces, but the in game events will apply properly to both sides. I tried to have it done for this first release but debugging the Lua took a little longer than I planned for.

And while we're talking about it, my Tomcats almost always get ate up by the MiG-31s in that scenario. The Phoenix may have a very slight range advantage on paper, but the Phoenix accuracy vs fighters is terrible. I try to keep them out of trouble, along with the E-2s, until I detect the Tu-22s then launch them en masse to intercept.

I really dislike the concept of balance in scenarios, even in multiplayer. You give the forces that would be reasonable for the command level on both sides, and let things fall were they may. Scoring can be asymmetric, even in multiplayer.

I think they'll end up being tow general types of scenarios. The knife fight in a phone booth scenarios where the forces are roughly mirrored, like North Pacific Shootout, Duelists, and Tiger and the Dragon. The second type will probably be more open ended operational level scenarios, where both sides have a little more room to maneuver. Something that I think is being lost in the discussion is not all scenarios need to be 1v1. You can do scenarios with 2 allied players sides vs the AI, or even both players on the same side. A clever scenario designer can then force the players to coordinate their efforts. For example, a SCS scenario where one player controls USN units, and the other controls USAF and allied units.

I'm looking forward to trying a scenario like Pole Positions in MP. Where it has two playable sides but the objectives are completely asymmetric. It needs some tweaks, which I'm working on, before it'll really be able to shine.

Hmmm... I get the feeling the air-to-air missile rework might have changed the balance in North Pacific Shootout...

Kushan04 wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2026 4:10 am There should be an update for North Pacific Shootout in the next release that makes it better compatible with MP. There's no changes to the forces, but the in game events will apply properly to both sides. I tried to have it done for this first release but debugging the Lua took a little longer than I planned for.

And while we're talking about it, my Tomcats almost always get ate up by the MiG-31s in that scenario. The Phoenix may have a very slight range advantage on paper, but the Phoenix accuracy vs fighters is terrible. I try to keep them out of trouble, along with the E-2s, until I detect the Tu-22s then launch them en masse to intercept.

Yeah that's my general experience. I found that the limitations of the Phoenix makes the Tomcats pretty vulnerable to the Amos missiles wielded by the Foxhounds. The only tactic I've found to somewhat mitigate this is to use an EA-6B for A2A support to try and Jam the Foxhound's targeting radar. It helps, but it's not a guaranteed solution.

Maybe I need to play around with the post-firing doctrine of the Tomcats?

I'm looking forward to trying a scenario like Pole Positions in MP. Where it has two playable sides but the objectives are completely asymmetric. It needs some tweaks, which I'm working on, before it'll really be able to shine.

Pole Positions is good for that, but then again, it is a LONG scenario, which could be a hinder to MP viability.

Eboreg wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2026 10:34 am Hmmm... I get the feeling the air-to-air missile rework might have changed the balance in North Pacific Shootout...

Very possibly. Perhaps default doctrine of the Foxhounds could use a tweak? It could be justified in the sense of relative inexperience of the Soviet pilots compared to USN pilots, perhaps.

HalfLifeExpert wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2026 5:08 pm

I'm looking forward to trying a scenario like Pole Positions in MP. Where it has two playable sides but the objectives are completely asymmetric. It needs some tweaks, which I'm working on, before it'll really be able to shine.

Pole Positions is good for that, but then again, it is a LONG scenario, which could be a hinder to MP viability.

True, but you can play it over multiple sessions. MP scenarios make a save when the host leaves the match. It can be reloaded in future sessions. Manual saving should be coming in the future as well.

Kushan04 wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2026 6:04 pm

HalfLifeExpert wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2026 5:08 pm

I'm looking forward to trying a scenario like Pole Positions in MP. Where it has two playable sides but the objectives are completely asymmetric. It needs some tweaks, which I'm working on, before it'll really be able to shine.

Pole Positions is good for that, but then again, it is a LONG scenario, which could be a hinder to MP viability.

True, but you can play it over multiple sessions. MP scenarios make a save when the host leaves the match. It can reloaded in future sessions. Manual saving should be coming in the future as well.

Ah, that's interesting. Didn't realize that.