Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

As a long time fan of both UG: Gettysburg and UG: Civil War I am really excited about the two new projects. However, I am curious as to why there are not any plans to incorporate a multiplayer component going forward? I get it on UG: Gettysburg as it was the first in the series and probably limited somewhat in its design scope. UG: Civil War improved in so many ways and really advanced the entire game....just a superb title. I can't help but wonder about the untapped potential of adding some form of multiplayer to these new upcoming series....AoS and Dreadnoughts. If you have the same team that did Civil War working on these projects I know they will be great regardless but man multiplayer/co-op would really be outstanding. Oh, and lastly....please for the love of all things holy please tell me that the NA dev team will not be sticking their dirty paws into these two upcoming projects.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack of multiplayer is one of the best things that can happen to a game like this. 

It means developers will pay extra attention to AI behaviour, character system, chain of command, (relatively) realistic battle pacing etc that are essential for a game like this.

Total War series is a living example of how introduction of multiplayer gradually and inevitably converts a rich grand deep realistic tactical experience to a frantic fast-faced dumbed-down clickfest with after-thought AI favoured by multiplayer gamers. 

Edited by mitth'raw'nuruodo
  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 8:57 AM, mitth'raw'nuruodo said:

Lack of multiplayer is one of the best things that can happen to a game like this. 

It means developers will pay extra attention to AI behaviour, character system, chain of command, (relatively) realistic battle pacing etc that are essential for a game like this.

Total War series is a living example of how introduction of multiplayer gradually and inevitably converts a rich grand deep realistic tactical experience to a frantic fast-faced dumbed-down clickfest with after-thought AI favoured by multiplayer gamers. 

To be fair, Vanilla Total War AI has never been "smart" it's been bearable though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand correctly, the game seems to be built around the concept of campaigns (Admirals' careers), not battles, and it is meant to include for the moment only two campaigns in which the player can't even choose his side.

Customized battles (PvP or player vs AI) where the player can choose his nationality, the location of the battle, the AI characteristics (nation, difficulty level...), etc like in the TW series would be an extra feature that would certainly require a lot of development.

Not to mention an OW (meaning an entirely new game).

I for one hope, above all, that other nations will soon be playable. I guess it takes new future campaigns with French, Spanish, Dutch... Admirals.

Edited by LeBoiteux
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 3:01 AM, Blackjack Morgan said:

As a long time fan of both UG: Gettysburg and UG: Civil War I am really excited about the two new projects. However, I am curious as to why there are not any plans to incorporate a multiplayer component going forward? I get it on UG: Gettysburg as it was the first in the series and probably limited somewhat in its design scope. UG: Civil War improved in so many ways and really advanced the entire game....just a superb title. I can't help but wonder about the untapped potential of adding some form of multiplayer to these new upcoming series....AoS and Dreadnoughts. If you have the same team that did Civil War working on these projects I know they will be great regardless but man multiplayer/co-op would really be outstanding. Oh, and lastly....please for the love of all things holy please tell me that the NA dev team will not be sticking their dirty paws into these two upcoming projects.

Men at War Assault Squad 2 has multi player but not on the same maps.

I dont know if you could have a realistic battle that takes a 30 or more min in multy player.

Pluse having multi player could being in the "you suck because you lost" player that destroys other online communities.

Just thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/28/2019 at 2:36 PM, LeBoiteux said:

If I understand correctly, the game seems to be built around the concept of campaigns (Admirals' careers), not battles, and it is meant to include for the moment only two campaigns in which the player can't even choose his side.

Customized battles (PvP or player vs AI) where the player can choose his nationality, the location of the battle, the AI characteristics (nation, difficulty level...), etc like in the TW series would be an extra feature that would certainly require a lot of development.

Not to mention an OW (meaning an entirely new game).

I for one hope, above all, that other nations will soon be playable. I guess it takes new future campaigns with French, Spanish, Dutch... Admirals.

You could have multiplayer campaigns. Easy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 7/26/2019 at 7:57 AM, mitth'raw'nuruodo said:

Lack of multiplayer is one of the best things that can happen to a game like this. 

It means developers will pay extra attention to AI behaviour, character system, chain of command, (relatively) realistic battle pacing etc that are essential for a game like this.

Total War series is a living example of how introduction of multiplayer gradually and inevitably converts a rich grand deep realistic tactical experience to a frantic fast-faced dumbed-down clickfest with after-thought AI favoured by multiplayer gamers. 

As someone else already said, The Total war AI wasn't good to begin with.
Aside of that, quite a few games like Stellaris, Crusader kings and Hearts of Iron both have very deep and interesting Gameplay, comperatively strong AI and Multiplayer at the same time, so I don't see why Gamelabs should be incapable of delivering a good AI and a good Multiplayer. The people which play Ultimate Admiral have no problem with playing slow paced battles in the first place, else they wouldn't be here. What's so wrong about giving us the opportunity to play those battles with or against our friends ?

And while a vocal, casual, audience can sometimes corrupt devs into doing away with the more hardcore features of their games, this is far from inevitable. It's a choice. and I'm confident that Gamelabs knows its audience better than to destroy what makes their games good, no matter the amount of multiplayer they're going to offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

It's disappointing that Gamelabs are staying away from multiplayer in their games. I mean focusing on single players campaigns and deep historical aspects of the game is not bad, but this often gets repetitive and boring in the long run. Total War's pre rome 2 games have really good replay value especially Napoleon Total War because of its modding and multiplayer support, even up to this day you can see people still playing Napoleonic Total War mod multiplayer. 

That's why multiplayer is one great aspect of lengthening replayabilities in games because playing with or against humans never gets repetitive unlike single player campaigns. AI's in these type of games can easily be outsmarted anyways, unless it's turn based or a chess game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...