Multiplayer in KoH

[Frujin]

How you imagine this guys? Share your "imaginations" :)

[Xuca]

Hmm... did you happen to forget a "2" in the title? :p If yes, the answer is obvious, I think. Europe map multiplayer, or at least a smaller regional map is what everyone wants.

[IBPK]

LAN or Internet. 2-4 players.

[IWM]

Oh yeah, I want that
Great if it will be real

[anguille]

Being a RTS makes its more difficult than for a TBS where you can also play by e-mail. The problem i see with KoH is the size of the map. Of course, some people could play during various times.

Here are some suggestions:

- Having specific goals for victory as options (take capital city, take specific province, alliance victory, kill specific King who is on the map with army - fix)
- Having various map sizes (small - up to 1 hour gameplay, medium 2-3 hours gameplay, large 3-10 hours gameplay) and scenarios (players against AI, teams AI with Human, historical situations like Scotland against England where major political alliances are fix).
- Easy saving and loading
- 2 up to 6 players (more may be difficult)
- Battles running along with strategic map.
- Cities should be more advanced then in the SP version. In MP, we shouldn't start from scratch but have the option to start with advanced cities (maybe as an option) with strong defences as well as with some knights with more experience like siege etc (also as an option).

PS i would recommend to play Lords of the Realm III on MP. It gives a rather good impression (even if the gameplay is much simpler than in Koh) of what KoH could be in MP.

Of course this all depends on whether this MP idea is for KoH or for KoH2

[firepowerjohan]

Anyone still playing Lord of the Realms III and where? Gamespy?

[Dobber]

It would have to be set up in a way that a victory could be achieved after 2-3 hours. Some people cannot play any longer than that, and saving a game to play later rarely gets finished due to the difficulty of getting the players back together.

[derLenz]

Europe map Multiplayer ! Thats would the best ... :D

[NikeBG]

Europe map Multiplayer ! Thats would the best ... :D

Oh, really? Wow, I wonder how nobody had thought of that... :rolleyes:
Can I remind you, people, Frujin's question: "How you imagine this guys?" Not "what", but "how"!

[Mephistopheles]

It's nice to see such a thread.

Multiplayer in KoH(2) is very much associated with the game-mechanics of KoH2.
One key feature I'd like to see in KoH, which is of key importance for multiplayer, are innerpolitical goals. All rulers always had to meet the expectations of the other figures of power in their territory. Examples might be "Convert that province to christianity", "Break relations with Genoa, since they are traitors to France", "Reconquer that province that was previously captured by England", "Establish a trade agreement with Poland", etc. - these goals should have an actual origin. A trader can ask you to make a trade agreement so he can gain more money, a knight might demand secured relations with a neighboring country because both his daughters are married to noblemen there, etc. The innerpolitical goals shouldn't be a god-given burden, rather a result of the game-dynamics.
These goals can be used to make the player heed 'realistic' goals. An unrealistic playstyle will very quickly cause a massive demand to change the policy. Under that assumption open ended europe map multiplayer works very well - even if the games are very long winded.
The second idea I already wrote in these forums is based on the innerpolitical goals. Every player gets a certain goal like "Capture these provinces from player A", "Establish marriages with countries A, B, C and D", "Occupy Jerusalem for more than one king's lifetime", etc. The player who meets his goal first wins, or gets a certain amount of scoring points and receives a new goal - that has to be decided while the idea is implemented. However, these goals are secret and only known to the faction's player. He tries to meet his own secret goals while he tries not to allow other players to meet their goals, while the other players try to do the same.
The secret goals can be easy to meet and the resulting game will be short and (for KoH) fast paced - or they can be set to difficult which leads to a more strategic play-style.

[maks]

It's nice to see such a thread.

Multiplayer in KoH(2) is very much associated with the game-mechanics of KoH2.
One key feature I'd like to see in KoH, which is of key importance for multiplayer, are innerpolitical goals. All rulers always had to meet the expectations of the other figures of power in their territory. Examples might be "Convert that province to christianity", "Break relations with Genoa, since they are traitors to France", "Reconquer that province that was previously captured by England", "Establish a trade agreement with Poland", etc. - these goals should have an actual origin. A trader can ask you to make a trade agreement so he can gain more money, a knight might demand secured relations with a neighboring country because both his daughters are married to noblemen there, etc. The innerpolitical goals shouldn't be a god-given burden, rather a result of the game-dynamics.
These goals can be used to make the player heed 'realistic' goals. An unrealistic playstyle will very quickly cause a massive demand to change the policy. Under that assumption open ended europe map multiplayer works very well - even if the games are very long winded.
The second idea I already wrote in these forums is based on the innerpolitical goals. Every player gets a certain goal like "Capture these provinces from player A", "Establish marriages with countries A, B, C and D", "Occupy Jerusalem for more than one king's lifetime", etc. The player who meets his goal first wins, or gets a certain amount of scoring points and receives a new goal - that has to be decided while the idea is implemented. However, these goals are secret and only known to the faction's player. He tries to meet his own secret goals while he tries not to allow other players to meet their goals, while the other players try to do the same.
The secret goals can be easy to meet and the resulting game will be short and (for KoH) fast paced - or they can be set to difficult which leads to a more strategic play-style.

With such system we risk end up with a gamble rather then a multiplayer KoH game. The result will be decided by player's luck to obtain an easier goal and/or a kingdom fitting the goal.

[Mephistopheles]

Yes. KoH is about using certain situations to your advantage. The political situation might allow you to reach your goals very easily while they might make it next to impossible for another player. Being a smart ruler is about shaping the political situation to your advantage.

To counter any 'either lucky instant-win OR next-to-impossible goal'-tendencies it might be a good idea to give each player a certain number of goals. During the development all goals are associated with a difficulty-score and when handing out the goals the program tries to make the sum of all difficulty scores identical for all players.
Still, the political situation has an important influence on how easy it is to reach your goals, which is why I like it so much.

Imagin a player is ruling Italy. Two of his goals are 'Establish an alliance with France' and 'Maintain a royal marriage with Spain'. The player rejoices because he thinks he'll win in an instant and starts improving relations with France and Spain.
A second player, e.g. ruler of England, had less luck and has a longer way to meet his goals. In the meantime he uses spies to check on the activities of other players. He receives rumours that Italy is sending tribute-payments to France and notices that Italy's relations with Spain are also improving drastically. He reckons that Italy is working on the game-goals (which those are is unknown, but very propably something like alliance-establishment or trade-agreements) and decides to hamper Italy a little while England can't progress on it's own goals. The King of England already has good relations with Spain and persuades the King of Spain to break relations with France in turn for a marriage and gold. Thus the relations between France and Spain drastically drop and, since Italy is a friend of France, the relations between Spain and Italy also decrease. In the second step the King of England uses a spy to cause more turmoil between Spain and France by causing territorial conflict over a province, which is a casus belli.
Spain and France are now on the verge of war and Italy's goal to reach good relations with both at the same time are now next to impossible for quite some time.
In this example the King of England was the better player. He managed to divert his attention to other player's goals and successfully hindered another player from progressing while waiting for his own goals to come closer. He used a number of tools to encounter a different player without ever directly interfering with him. Italy on the other hand should have been more careful in working towards it's goals to not draw too much attention. Also Italy should have used espionage to identify the reasons for the turmoil between Spain and France to counter it by discrediting England.

The example shows that yes, the political situation influences how easy it is to reach certain goals, but no, the political situation isn't completely random. For me KoH is a lot about being random and about reacting to these random influences in a smart way. A bit like a card-game: The hand you get is random, but whether you manage to win with a good hand is up to you.
Of course KoH needs more political tools to allow the players to take more influence.

[maks]

Yes. KoH is about using certain situations to your advantage. The political situation might allow you to reach your goals very easily while they might make it next to impossible for another player. Being a smart ruler is about shaping the political situation to your advantage.

To counter any 'either lucky instant-win OR next-to-impossible goal'-tendencies it might be a good idea to give each player a certain number of goals. During the development all goals are associated with a difficulty-score and when handing out the goals the program tries to make the sum of all difficulty scores identical for all players.
Still, the political situation has an important influence on how easy it is to reach your goals, which is why I like it so much.

Imagin a player is ruling Italy. Two of his goals are 'Establish an alliance with France' and 'Maintain a royal marriage with Spain'. The player rejoices because he thinks he'll win in an instant and starts improving relations with France and Spain.
A second player, e.g. ruler of England, had less luck and has a longer way to meet his goals. In the meantime he uses spies to check on the activities of other players. He receives rumours that Italy is sending tribute-payments to France and notices that Italy's relations with Spain are also improving drastically. He reckons that Italy is working on the game-goals (which those are is unknown, but very propably something like alliance-establishment or trade-agreements) and decides to hamper Italy a little while England can't progress on it's own goals. The King of England already has good relations with Spain and persuades the King of Spain to break relations with France in turn for a marriage and gold. Thus the relations between France and Spain drastically drop and, since Italy is a friend of France, the relations between Spain and Italy also decrease. In the second step the King of England uses a spy to cause more turmoil between Spain and France by causing territorial conflict over a province, which is a casus belli.
Spain and France are now on the verge of war and Italy's goal to reach good relations with both at the same time are now next to impossible for quite some time.
In this example the King of England was the better player. He managed to divert his attention to other player's goals and successfully hindered another player from progressing while waiting for his own goals to come closer. He used a number of tools to encounter a different player without ever directly interfering with him. Italy on the other hand should have been more careful in working towards it's goals to not draw too much attention. Also Italy should have used espionage to identify the reasons for the turmoil between Spain and France to counter it by discrediting England.

The example shows that yes, the political situation influences how easy it is to reach certain goals, but no, the political situation isn't completely random. For me KoH is a lot about being random and about reacting to these random influences in a smart way. A bit like a card-game: The hand you get is random, but whether you manage to win with a good hand is up to you.
Of course KoH needs more political tools to allow the players to take more influence.

Well, there're games where it's nearly impossible to win with bad cards on hand if you face an experienced opponent. I have this feeling that KoH is close to those games. In your example the first player just needs to be a little stealthy, and even if he isn't, it's virtually impossible for the opponent to influence the desired states if players reside on the opposite sides of the map.
KoH is random, which is very good in single play, but in a multiplayer game it just turns out to be unfair.

[splEEnfiRe]

I am very very surprised, that this question appears so long time after the release of KoH.
(i am german and i am not as good in speaking english as a native, so sry for grammar or word mistakes)

It was quite a long time ago, when i tried to find a concept for a KoH-Multiplayer. Here is what i would suggest because i think it is a mixture of many ideas:

As a consequence of Battle for europe being a very time-consuming game-mode i think it should be possible to adapt the form of this game mode, mabye in a way like i this:

First, before logging in in a specific match one can choose between two different modes which frame the temporal effort:

1) "Battle for Europe" as a complete game
-this match is played (like a single player one) as long as it takes (until the most
powerfull kingdom is found)
-If a player leaves the game the ownerless country will be controlled automatically by a
computer-player

2) "Battle for Europe" as a temporary game (i am particular interested in this mode)
-This match begins and will be saved on a server after a specific period of time
-it is defined when the players resume the match and how long one period of time
will last (e.g. every Mondays from 7 o´clock to 9 o´clock am and Thuesdays from 6
o´clock to 8 o´clock)
-the saving and resuming of such matches will be continued until one player conquers
europe, is chosen from the other players to be the most powerfull player (reigns the
most powerfull kingdom) ->like the single player version, or until only computer
players play against each other cause every human being has left or didnt resume the
game.
-to avoid players getting other players kingdoms/countries by logging in, the owner of
the country sets an password for this kingdom, when he first logs in in this specific
match-> when the game is resumed only that player who knows the password for a
specific kingdom can log in and play this kingdom, otherwise he will get a warning.

Another problem, that will appear is, that the kingdoms diverge in their size. I also have an idea to solve this (but it can be improved i am sure):
every player starts with his KoH-online-account from level 1. Every time he plays an "Battle for Europe"-match he gains "experience" (figuratively) -> this experience could be the amount of points from the categoties (most powerfull kingdom, military-strength,trading-income,...like in the single player mode).
For example: With level 1 he can choose every kingdom regardless of how many
provinces it has by the beginning.
With level 2 he can only can choose countries up to a maximum of 5
provinces
With level 3 -> maximum 3 provinces
With level 4 -> maximum 2 provinces
With level 5 -> maximum 1 province

(it can be more levels, i dont know yet how it will be balanced, so that one player not always can choose a big country)

So that was it, my suggested implementation of KoH "Battle for Europe" online.
(i hape it is understandable)
I am looking forward to reading some criticism (good or bad) about my suggestion.

I will monitor this thread and will post improvements, when i get ideas.

greetings

splEEnfiRe

[Mephistopheles]

Well, there're games where it's nearly impossible to win with bad cards on hand if you face an experienced opponent. I have this feeling that KoH is close to those games. In your example the first player just needs to be a little stealthy, and even if he isn't, it's virtually impossible for the opponent to influence the desired states if players reside on the opposite sides of the map.
KoH is random, which is very good in single play, but in a multiplayer game it just turns out to be unfair.Now we're discussing the basics of KoH, but I guess that is necessary when trying to discuss how to implement multiplayer.
I think random influences are a key factor in KoH's singleplayer and should also stay in multiplayer. Of course that means that the winner of a multiplayer game is the one who had both the luck and the capabilities to win. That means you can't say "Player A has won against player B, thus player A is a better player" like you can after a match of Starcraft or Quake. However, I don't care much about that because I can accept defeat due to bad luck. I want to carry the playstyle from KoH's singleplayer to multiplayer and that means that random factors are still an influence.

In an open-ended singleplayer-like game the players will try to gobble up as many AI-kingdoms as they can before taking each other on because players are significantly more difficult to beat than AIs. That is a valid game-type and in MP it'll be as much fun as in SP, propably even more.
The goal system I propose serves the purpose to give the game a jump start and make things a little quicker. The goals cause players to have conflicting plans from the first second on and thus they have a reason to interact from the start on. You could set up a goal-based game to end within about 3 hours.
The goals were inspired by risk-like board games where you also draw (secret) goals from a stack of cards and try to achieve them. The suspicions between the players make for an intriguing game.

The goal-system then inspired the concept of innerpolitical goals. Frujin said that he was sceptical about the europe-MP because the players would just steam-roll over europe without the slightest interest in any atmospheric/realistic gameplay. The innerpolitical goals restrict the player in a similar manner as real kings were restricted and are very self-explanatory. If they are explained in a logical maner ingame I'm sure they will enrich the game because they add an interesting layer to the game and don't need a lenghty introduction since every player knows what innerpolitical pressure is.

[splEEnfiRe]

Now we're discussing the basics of KoH, but I guess that is necessary when trying to discuss how to implement multiplayer.
I think random influences are a key factor in KoH's singleplayer and should also stay in multiplayer. Of course that means that the winner of a multiplayer game is the one who had both the luck and the capabilities to win. That means you can't say "Player A has won against player B, thus player A is a better player" like you can after a match of Starcraft or Quake. However, I don't care much about that because I can accept defeat due to bad luck. I want to carry the playstyle from KoH's singleplayer to multiplayer and that means that random factors are still an influence.

In an open-ended singleplayer-like game the players will try to gobble up as many AI-kingdoms as they can before taking each other on because players are significantly more difficult to beat than AIs. That is a valid game-type and in MP it'll be as much fun as in SP, propably even more.
The goal system I propose serves the purpose to give the game a jump start and make things a little quicker. The goals cause players to have conflicting plans from the first second on and thus they have a reason to interact from the start on. You could set up a goal-based game to end within about 3 hours.
The goals were inspired by risk-like board games where you also draw (secret) goals from a stack of cards and try to achieve them. The suspicions between the players make for an intriguing game.

The goal-system then inspired the concept of innerpolitical goals. Frujin said that he was sceptical about the europe-MP because the players would just steam-roll over europe without the slightest interest in any atmospheric/realistic gameplay. The innerpolitical goals restrict the player in a similar manner as real kings were restricted and are very self-explanatory. If they are explained in a logical maner ingame I'm sure they will enrich the game because they add an interesting layer to the game and don't need a lenghty introduction since every player knows what innerpolitical pressure is.

Very nice idea Mephistopheles. This "Goal-system" should really be integrated in the Multiplayer, although i would prefer, that a player not only has to reach this goal but also has to conquer europe or is choosen by the other players to be the most powerfull king. Mabye he gets extra points by solving the goal or the goals are quite difficult to reach, then they could be the only aim for a player.

[Battlehawk]

About multiplayer, I think it’s unavoidable that KoH 2 should have something like a grand campaign multiplayer much in the lines as spleenfire setout. I also think such a game should run for a given amount of time and will let players join and leave at anypoint while the game continues regardless.

What I am looking for in a new historical multiplayer strategy game is a game that is rich in flavor. In which you would have to balance many factor on a knives edge. In which the mechanics are such that its impossible to wage an eternal war of conquest. For much the same reasons such wars in Europe’s medieval history were impractical. In which your options are limited by factor such as religion, stability, trade & economy, foreign relations, etc.

In general I would also favor a grand multiplayer “Battle of Europe” scenario. Though I am not sure as to what the victory condition should be. Personally I think the setting of a victory condition might diminish the sense of enjoyment in the gameplay. Though I fully realize the lack of a victory condition could do the same. My ideal would be something where “winning” would be related to how well you played your state given the difference in starting situations.

I am in favor of goals and events as long as they give a deeper submersion and enrichment of the gameplay. When a goal or event is presented. It should seem plausible somehow or be made plausible. Such events enrich the experience.

[Aragoni]

I registered just to share my thoughts in this thread and the funny part is that it can be told with 2 words: Grand Campaign! :go:

[Denisold]

How you imagine this guys? Share your "imaginations" :)

The posts above have lots of great ideas re MP and SP. Here are some more comments.

I presume that the SP in KoH2 will be ‘very advanced’ (from the game play level that exists in KoH) prior to overlaying in advanced MP. By this I mean that many of the dozens and dozens of great suggestions on possible KoH SP improvements that were posted in the old Sunflowers site are added to KoH – after which the MP would be designed.

I see 3 MP levels – those wanting the MP experience would choose from:

1. A short ‘Battle’ (say for about 2 hrs) with perhaps 2 players, using only the advanced ‘battle screen’ concepts developed for SP above (ie this would include fog of war, line of sight, moveable camera, buildings as barriers, better terrain, selectable troops and weapons, etc and would emphasize strategic planning, positioning and play). This would mirror many of the current MP games that are built on the popularity of ‘hack and slash’ and ‘shoot em up’ concepts (which have an obvious appeal to many many gamers and likely drives commercial success of any new game). Last one standing would be the winner.

2. A full evening 4-5 hr game of 4 players using a reduced regional map and containing many of the simpler SP game concepts. Each player selects his kingdom at start – kingdoms available would be ‘equalized’ - if a kingdom was maxed out with every possible resource (ie full experienced army, developed cities, advanced trade, wealth, ….etc) perhaps the total might be 100 – for the start conditions perhaps the tally of resources for each kingdom might be set at 20 – but each kingdom would contain a different mix of resources. Mini interpolitical goals could be included (see Mephistopheles’ post). Most points after 5 hours wins, or if you lose your king in battle you lose, or you complete the mini goals first.

3. A full long game for experienced and committed KoH players. Say about 10-20 hours played over many days using full map and all elements from the SP design. Maybe 4 players (plus the AI players) – the players could leave the game and return at agreed times. Players would accumulate points for each game entered and played – the player’s points be visible to those when a game was being set up (see splEEnfiRe’s post) so prospective players could decide if they wanted to commit to a long game. Kingdom selection similar to #2 above. Mini winners could be most points after 5 hours, after 10 hours, etc; or most mini goals completed in each 5-hour period; ultimate winner is last person standing.

Of course the above is very rough and needs to be fleshed out by game designers.

One note of concern – I hope that BSS completes the advanced SP design in full before going on to MP – after all, the existing KoH charm and sophistication is built on single player requirements and not on multi player. IMO putting too much effort into MP early will likely weaken SP.

[splEEnfiRe]

nice Idea Denisold. :go:

I see it will be quite difficult to develope a MP. But here in this Thread there are many really good concepts.

@Denisold: The only aspect i would change a little bit is number 3.
"Players would accumulate points for each game entered and played " and
finished. That will make sure, that a player returns to this game again, we it
was paused.
4 Players + AI are ok but i would prefer if more players would be possible to.
Mabye as many players as kingdoms on the map.
=> dynamic Player number

sry for bad english

splEEnfiRe

[TheDruid]

Hello everybody

I also joined this forum just because of this thread. As a big KOH Fan i would really appreciate a multiplayer option ( on the epic campaign mode for 2 - 4 human players ) for koh 2 and also for 1 . Primarily i would be looking forward to a patch for good old koh ( 1 ) with strategic multiplayer option, because that one i could play via lan though only one of my 2 computers has high - end hardware :rolleyes:
The very advantage of koh`s gameplay is, that strategic management and fighting battles can run simultaneously , this is very helpful for making a stable and comfortable multiplayer option. I Hope that my opinion fits with all of you.

Greetings
Steven

[IWM]

Do you want a patch that like "151 MB" ? I personally like it if it was on Add-on. That way, BSS still got some money and my Internet isn't doomed

[TheDruid]

Yes, good point, i would definately also buy an addon for KOH if it had strategic (epic) multiplayer ( Via LAN and maby Internet )

[IWM]

Yeah, LAN is good point. Shame me don't have friend in LAN

[splEEnfiRe]

I would prefer a patch to download but i would also buy an AddOn because i am so interested in playing KoH with my friends over LAN or even in the Internet against powerfull players.

But i don´t want, that this Multiplayer only can support up to 4 players. It should be possible to decide wether i want to play against 3 opponents or 20. Plz let the player decide BSS.:go:

[TheDruid]

What I also so like about KOH is the diplomacy part of the game, to see how the other kings react to your biddings or whatsoever, this point will also be very interesting in multiplayer with human opponents or maby allies.

[IWM]

And if it works that way, we should have counter offer.

[Doux]

And if it works that way, we should have counter offer.I second that compleatly! Having counter offers is one of the things I miss in KoH 1.05.

[TheDruid]

By the way I also remember reading many reviews of KOH.
In general the critics were very good but in almost every review, the missing strategic multiplayer ( besides sometimes skirmish- looking battles) was the main critic point.
So this may be also a stimulus to create one, or to think about that point considering a KOH 2.
Just realized that by chewing over the topic.


Greetings
Steven

[TheDruid]

I got an idea yesterday, maby it is silly, but i want you to know it:

If BSS actually does not intend to bring this kind of strategic multilayer to KOH, maby just to an possible upcoming/ or planned KOH 2,
I just thought that we might transfer money ( me for example would up to 20 Euros or even more ) to BSS that maby this will convince one or two of BSS Programmers to also work on an multiplayer patch for KOH 1. Cause I know that many of us want to have multiplayer on the strategic card with friends in KOH.
Our try might have an impact. I know that they still have a lot of other things to do, but i would really appreciate just to hear, that they might work on it.

If it has an impact i could imagine that we will see an inofficial (let me call it 1.06 ) patch, that might be a little buggy, but at the beginning just for the main users of this forum.

I like this idea, although it might be a little funny, because if it works we would be the very first fan- community in history that paid for a very special patch ( well i think so). But in fact this also shows how much we love the game / or how much we are interested in it and that is also a congratulation to the makers of the game.

At first we could also start with a poll, to find out who or how many of you would like to follow my idea. I could also imagine, that many of you now think i might be very silly, but im very a big fan of the game. So, please share your opinions with me/ with us. Maby i also just reached your way of thinking.

By the way : Sorry for my bad english :)

[ilkerbonapart]

why dont we play on gamespy.. i was playing 2 years ago online and i havent played for a long time ... but now i cant find anybody to play.. my msn adress : bonapart_35@hotmail.com .. if we create a group on msn , we can often play multiplay.. but we have a problem too , different of version can create connection problems

[TheDruid]

Of course we could also tell here , if somebody has time to play on the internet.
Would be even cooler if till then there would be another multiplayer option

[IWM]

Atmosphere want to multiplay/

[ilkerbonapart]

a lot of people want to play online but nobody says how we can meet.. everybody are from different countries , for example i m from turkey..only on forum , we cant meet correctly

[Richard]

How you imagine this guys? Share your "imaginations" :)

1-Include the entire map, but allow at least 10 players and the ability to save games and then continue them. Battles would of course always be ai controlled, though the option of allowing you to control the battles would be nice.

2-a At the same time create maps of different regions (england/france/germany/etc..) which are separated into small kingdoms(1 or 2 province each?) where each player controls one small kingdom(well Ai should control some too) and tries to unify the region by defeating all other players. (allow the host the option of to make battles controllable by humans or by the ai when creating the game.)

2-b On these same regional maps allow teams to be created before the game starts. Then each team fights over the region and which ever team defeats all the players of the other teams wins the game.

This way you can have games on the entire map, which will take a lot of time and commitment, or if you want a quick game you play on one of the regional maps.:go:

[elvain]

1-Include the entire map, but allow at least 10 players and the ability to save games and then continue them. Battles would of course always be ai controlled, though the option of allowing you to control the battles would be nice.
I think that the battles could easily be also player-controlled. There would simply be no "pause during battles" option

[ilkerbonapart]

is there anybody who play multiplay a long time orderly ? some people can think to be ugly to play at these parts of game , i dont talk about castle or batlle-area games ( because we can not create unit in match ) but i think that tower games are so funny , i dont forget to a 1vs1 tower games , it was during 3 hours ...

[keith]

Having the whole map open would lend well to clan play also, a 5v5 team of Anglos vs Normans and so on.

All I would say is don't sacrifice the single player epic game side for the multipayer :)

[Mephistopheles]

Another idea:
In KoH2 there should be administrative losses. That means that a given percentage of the gross-income should be lost so that a 50 province world-empire is less tax-efficient than a 1 province kingdom. The administrative losses should vary with the difficulty setting.

In multiplayer the administrative losses should be a game-variable that can be set at gamestart. A very high setting of administrative losses would allow a new game-mode:
Two players start time-based game on a small map with e.g. 8 provinces. Each player has half of the provinces. For each province owned for 1 minute each player gets 1 point. If the player captures another province the administrative losses rise so much that he ends up getting less net-income with 5 provinces than he had with 4. On the other hand the player who lost a province suffers from far less administrative losses and ends up with more net-income. That means that the more provinces you hold the more difficult it gets to defend them, but the only way to win is to capture and hold provinces.
When the game reaches the time that was set at the beginning of the game the points each player scored are compared and the winner is proclaimed.
These games should be fast paced and can easily be decided within 30 minutes.

This isn't meant as a replacement for the europe-campaign, but as a quick alternative that doesn't take weeks to decide.

[splEEnfiRe]

Excellent idea for 2-Player games:go:

[Denisold]

All I would say is don't sacrifice the single player epic game side for the multipayer :)

hey Keith - IMO you have hit nail on the head - KoH is great because it was designed for the single player - hopefully BSS doesn't let SP slip to the backgound in whatever appears as KoH2

[Denisold]

Another idea:

Two players start time-based game on a small map with e.g. 8 provinces. Each player has half of the provinces. .

Meph - great suggestion for a short MP game

A question - would the computer AI also be participating in the game? perhaps including AI would spice the game up a bit?

[elvain]

In the menu:

1) Singleplayer
- ...

2) Multiplayer
- A) Grand map multiplayer (Long run multiplayer for many plaers)
- B) Regional maps multiplayer (with several regional maps where the game would last 4-6 hours)
- C) Battle maps/Historical battles - not sure if necessary if great multiplayer options would be possible :)
- D) Equivalent of the missions mode (http://forums.blackseastudios.com/showthread.php?p=8278#post8278) where each player has own missions and some exact time to play. For each mission/quest completed he gains points, when the time is gone (or some player crosses certain number of points). The quest could be in diferent fields, such as religion, economy/techonologies, military or diplomacy, so some quests could be more easier to be disabled by other players, some less)

[Denisold]

- D) Equivalent of the missions mode (http://forums.blackseastudios.com/showthread.php?p=8278#post8278) where each player has own missions and some exact time to play. For each mission/quest completed he gains points, when the time is gone (or some player crosses certain number of points). The quest could be in different fields, such as religion, economy/technologies, military or diplomacy, so some quests could be more easier to be disabled by other players, some less)

Yes Elvain - this would be a good addition to the multiplayer aspect - while not the traditional multiplayer 'head-to-head' direct competition, it has IMO much merit.

Your tournament 'Reunite Byzantia' is a good playable example of a mission with a time element. For me the introduction of speed into KoH changed the game completely (ie made it much more fun trying to keep up with the better players). For those who haven't given given the 'tourney' a try I suggest you try it - playing 'against the clock' is far more challenging than playing KoH at your leisure

For this concept to be multiplayer BSS would need to develop something that collected mission results vs time (automatically?) from each entrant, and present the updated results for each mission on a periodic basis. Each entrant could then have a idea of how well he had mastered some of the many ways to play

Also perhaps a there could be a version of 'head-to-head' - each entrant would start at the same time and race to the end goal - but again BSS needs to develop an automatic way to keep scores.

[elvain]

Yes Elvain - this would be a good addition to the multiplayer aspect - while not the traditional multiplayer 'head-to-head' direct competition, it has IMO much merit.

Your tournament 'Reunite Byzantia' is a good playable example of a mission with a time element. For me the introduction of speed into KoH changed the game completely (ie made it much more fun trying to keep up with the better players). For those who haven't given given the 'tourney' a try I suggest you try it - playing 'against the clock' is far more challenging than playing KoH at your leisure

For this concept to be multiplayer BSS would need to develop something that collected mission results vs time (automatically?) from each entrant, and present the updated results for each mission on a periodic basis. Each entrant could then have a idea of how well he had mastered some of the many ways to play

Also perhaps a there could be a version of 'head-to-head' - each entrant would start at the same time and race to the end goal - but again BSS needs to develop an automatic way to keep scores.
Hehe, I actualy like it too, especially because I completely failed to play successfully against time (and you) :D

Anyway I think it would not be a problem at all, at least if BSS uses something like "my scoring system (http://forums.blackseastudios.com/showpost.php?p=3961&postcount=136)". Every part of game is scored in diferent rankings (technology/economy, religion, warfare, diplomacy) and also in total ranking (which would be the one relevant for the 'mission mode')

The score/ranking would be constantly calculated and would inform each player about his current ranking. The quests, of course, would provide nicely high scores.. and once the score limit is crossed or time is gone, the game ends. Easy, fast and little diferent than normal singleplayer game (thanks to the time element).

PS: the idea (of the competition) wasn't mine! :)

[Denisold]

For those who haven't given given the 'tourney' a try I suggest you try it - playing 'against the clock' is far more challenging than playing KoH at your leisure.

A point I forgot to add in my previous post

By entering Elvain's Byzantine tourney I was taken to an area of the map that I hadn't played very much before - up to then most of my game time had been on the NW section of the map, not the SE. Starting a game in the SE exposed me to many of the games' other dimensions which I hadn't experienced - which is a good thing.

I see including some form of tourney play in KoH2 will likely result in experienced players leaving their comfort zones (when playing single player at their leisure) and hence learning much more about this great game, and also having more fun.