Europe mode in Multiplayer??

[Yoink]

Let me start by saying, I think KoH is the best rts since Lords of the Realm, my only gripe is that you can't play the "europe" mode multi player. Is there any plans to make this a feature in future patches?

[Elvain]

there is no reliable plan for a patch yet. There is only one very old statement that there won't be any other patch what is really stupid statement from Sunflowers.
But as I said it was old statement from time when no North American release was planned and as you can see now, KoH is released in NA for several days already.

So the hope survives.
For the europe MP mod. I think it is almost impossible and the mod would be almost unplayable in whole Europe. But many people here support the idea to make it local campaign in local scenarios (British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia, Baltic campaign-"Northern Crusades", "Lithuanian expansion to Russia", "Mongol invasion", the Near East, "Restoration of Byzantine empire", Unification of HolyRomanEmpire=todays Germany, Italy, Iberian peninsula-"the reconquest", east central Europe=Hungary+Poland+Bohemia, the Balkans, "restoration of the Caliphate"=Near East+Africa, etc.)

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Yeah, i was really dissapointed when I found that out. Atleast I found it out before i got the game or else i would have been mad when it wasnt there. :nono:

[Da Bomb]

Yea I can't imagine how fun it would be to play with like my brother or friends. We would basically be playing a spyfest. No one would hire like anyone until they had a level 5 spy in their court that they were sure wasn't an enemy spy (like a king or prince). Nobody would do like anything jeopardizing until they had an heir and like no one would hire a separate spy because an enemy spy as your own is sooo annoying...

[Traveller]

Europe MP would be a great thing, but I just can't imagine how it could be done. Especially for whole Europe. The length of one Europe game in SP against the not-so-smart-as-us computer is long, long hours. Days even! This is just inapplicable! And, ofcourse, you wouldn't be able to lead the battles yourself, because you can't pause the whole game for only a battle between two people. And it would be stupid to lead battles, while in the same time your kingdom's fate is at stake. People would just wait for someone to start a battle to steal their land. What Elvain said sounds better - small campaigns, with no battles, ofcourse, except if the game is face-to-face (1v1).

[Da Bomb]

I think it could be done. Yea you wouldn't have multiplayer battles but I don't like those anyways and that's why there is the form of multiplayer that already exists. Also, you said people would wait til another person gets in a fight to steal their land, but how would you know that they got in a fight?

[Traveller]

Maybe you don't like the fights, but there are others that might. And you can just see that there is a fight if you have a spy or a knight in this enemy province. Besides, the length of the game would still be too long for an MP game!

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Maybe you don't like the fights, but there are others that might. And you can just see that there is a fight if you have a spy or a knight in this enemy province. Besides, the length of the game would still be too long for an MP game!
Yeah there are alot of problems, but I dont like the fights either and it could be made so you could save the game. But then thats a problem too, because you have to wait until they are back on. But then I would be fighting against my brother, and hes on like all the time. But still im really sad that it wasn't in there. :nono:

[Alex Poff]

Would it be possible to play europe multiplayer if you didn't have the ability to do the rts style of fighting, just have them battle it out on the screen only, which is one of the options now anyway.

Just disable the ability to "go in" and take control of the fight.

[Da Bomb]

Exactly. That's what I would like to have because I don't really prefer the RTS fighting. Let the comps take care of it so whoever should win is probably going to win!

[imperatormike]

OK, I know it's way to late to change anything about the design of KoH, particularly toward multiplayer, but I'm going to vent here because this is deserving of scathing contempt:

On April 20, 2005, Frujin had this to say about KoH and multiplayer in an interview at pcgamezone.com:

"Q: Battles are the only aspects of the game, which is supported in multiplayer. What was the reasoning behind this decision?

Vesselin: The only reason for this is the essence of the game mechanics and rules behind the game. It is meant to be played by a single player on the giant map of Europe. Because it’s hard for me to explain it I will give you an example. Imagine that you play the game and all your enemies are AIs. If you lose a battle the enemy AI can still come to you with a peace proposal, can ask you for a land or gold, but will hardly destroy you without any negotiations. In the other hand, if you play with your friends and get in the same situation when player X is stronger than player Y, it is in the human nature that X will wipe Y from the map without any doubts. That’s why multiplayer games are always meant to be arenas where players meet and fight. To make such a multiplayer in KOH would mean to invent completely different mechanics and game rules. And that would mean a completely different game."

Is anyone else completely dumbfounded by the total lack of reason in that statement?

Are you kidding me that the developers think KoH multiplayer would be handicapped by the fact that the human players MIGHT BE TRYING TO ELIMINATE EACH OTHER???

Is that why counterstrike, warcraft, starcraft, mmorpg's, and a host of other multiplayer (both online and lan) games are so popular, because the players are all interested in living in harmony in the game world and NEVER actually trying to WIN??

Didn't he just say that, qoute: "That’s why multiplayer games are always meant to be arenas where players meet and fight." NO KIDDING SHERLOCK!! How about letting me meet and fight at a STRATEGIC level, so that the tactical battles have some actual meaning in a greater conflict!

Restricting the venue of where the players meet and fight to purely tactical battles that have no connection to a greater context and therefore are meaningless is a development cop-out.

This interview goes against the "there's not enough money" excuse I saw on this board several days ago, and leaves me with one question left to ask:

Since BSS designed this game with a huge amount of tactical, diplomatic, economic, and construction choices; but didn't design an AI opponent into the game that could actually UTILIZE all these options, who did they design all those options for?

Pissed but still buying the game,
imperatormike

[imperatormike]

KoH is the true inheritor of the Lords of the Realm 2 medieval gameply mantle, and in my book that is a compliment of the highest order.

My biggest disappointment with it is the much discussed absence of campaign multi-play, which seems to be a stubborn trend with developers; i.e. KoH, RTW, and Imperial Glory.

My suggestion is to take a lesson from LotR2, and let the GAMERS decide how long they can play a game, how many players they can round up, how often they want to save, etc.

Let me decide how many countries I want represented on the map, from the whole map to just the British Isles, or a France/Germany contest.The many variations on that theme alone would choke the boards with discussions and debates.

Don't decide for me how many players I can round up, just make it a choice at setup and password the sides. Let the players save when they want and continue when the want. (amazingly flexible thing, choice)

If I want to play the whole game at 3x speed, LET ME. You don't have to decide what the best setting is, let your audience decide what works best for them.

Don't worry about the whole "how do we handle battles" debate, (i'm gonna say it again) let me decide how I want to play the game. If I and my friends/opponents want to fight every battle, it's our time, let us do it. Also, let us restrict the battles by time limit if we wish, or restrict human commanded battles to only those where the players avatar (the king) is actually present.

What are the other players doing while battles are going on? I've got an idea, let me decide whether they can watch, whether the campaign continues while the battle happens, or whether they can just give orders in a paused mode.

I have come to think that some of the reluctance that developers have about multi-play and it's challenges is the loss of control over the gameplay. What they fail to realize is that is EXACTLY want we what them to relinquish to us as the gamers."

And in addition to that, the most interesting situation I can imagine is 2 fairly balanced nations (England and France) being played by humans, and using all the great diplomatic options and strategies to influence the smaller nations surrounding the opponent to enlist aid in the conflict.

[Alex Poff]

bump, bump, bump

[Angryminer]

There is nothing to bump. The MP-multiplayer has been requested since about january of 2004.

Angryminer

[Gabo]

It would be difficult to put a giant map of Europe for MP allright. I guess it would take alot of computer resources which would make the game hardly playable. I mean, I have played Stronghold on multiplayer and the conection begin to get choppy when you get high number of troops. Imagine dozens of AI fighting with human players...Anyways it would be difficult to put up a europe mode MP but not impossible. I trust folks at BSS can do this some time in the future.

[kailan the bold]

they AI is just to weak to be challeging. as long as europe mode isn't in multiplayer, i stop playing because there is no point to it. even when i start with one province (like kazan) i am by far the mightiest kindom after two ours of play.

kailan the bold

[contactkoh]

How is the Online Battle mode?
I find the offline Quickbattle mode very disappointing and limiting (It has No option to do anything!!)
Can you reinforce and choose nations in online battle mode??

[eddieballgame]

Minus the RTS battles should allow for a"pretty smooth" Multi-player game, the same as single version. I have played Hearts of Iron multiplay & it is superb. btw HOI is played on a HUGE map.
KOH is an excellent game, might I suggest a "Game of the Month" ( ie, CIV style ), type of challenge for those who would be so inclined.