So What about Multiplayer?

[Hoplite1963]

I wonder if first off it would be easier to play Empire battles in FG2 against another person of this was confined to hot seat games ?

[loki100]

No. The FoG2 connection only works in single player currently. We are not averse to it working in MP at some point in the future, but the technical and design hurdles are considerable.

Cheers

Pip

OK, that's the decider against buying this game for me. I am not interested in playing FOG2 battles against the AI, but I would like to play a single player Empires campaign game where I could export the main battles to FOG2 multi-player. I would buy Empires then.

Each to their own choices on this. But its worth stressing (again), Empires was not designed as a battle generator for FoG2. In fact it was not originally designed with FoG2 in mind, it has its own (involved, challenging and quirky) battle system that works very well for what is basically a strategic level game that spans 500 years.

As I understand it, for SP designing the interfacing was relatively easy. Certain from the testing perspective it worked well enough at first go and has got more intuitive since then. But everyone at the coding level says that setting this up for MP (even 1-1) is far more complex, I assume as the link between the 2 games would have to be handled via the Slitherine/Matrix MP server.

So we end up with what do you want a small design team to do? Spend a lot of time trying to get systems to talk to each other when they were never designed to do that or to balance, polish etc the core game(s)?

I wonder if first off it would be easier to play Empire battles in FG2 against another person of this was confined to hot seat games ?

In part as above, at the moment if you are playing Empires MP you can't export to FoG2. In you are playing Empires SP, then the export will automatically assign the AI to control the other army. I guess (and this is a guess) that this could be more easily made so that in theory another player could step in.

Other bit worth bearing in mind, FoG2 does not try to balance an Empires battle, it uses a translation system to set it up as a reasonable facsimile, so they are not balanced, and I'm not sure how many human players would want to voluntarily take a weakened side?

[stockwellpete]

So we end up with what do you want a small design team to do? Spend a lot of time trying to get systems to talk to each other when they were never designed to do that or to balance, polish etc the core game(s)?

It depends on how many person-hours you think it might take to develop a MP "connection" between Empires and FOG2 - and then how many extra units of the game you think you might sell as a result of doing this. I don't think it necessarily has to be counter-posed to developing the game further (such enhancements obviously have to take priority, I agree).

[choppinlt]

It depends on how many person-hours you think it might take to develop a MP "connection" between Empires and FOG2 - and then how many extra units of the game you think you might sell as a result of doing this.

EXACTLY stockwellpete! It comes down to a business decision, and I totally respect that.

I don't think it necessarily has to be counter-posed to developing the game further (such enhancements obviously have to take priority, I agree).

Completely agree with this as well.

I have 2 motives for this discussion and it completely involves awareness. Generating awareness to the publisher/development team that there is a market for full MP functionality (i.e. FOG2 MP with FOG E, and MP FOG E with FOG2) with Empires. Having conversation on the forum is a good way for lots of people to express their desire for expansion to the MP FOG2 arena and make it attractive to spend resources. In other words expansion in this area is something that I (and others) are interested in paying for. Will it be worth their resources to develop? We shall see, but they can count me as a paying customer if they expand this way.

The second area of awareness is to the market (i.e the potential buyers). When I first read the feature about porting battles to FOG2 there were no exceptions stated. In fact it implies full compatibility with FOG2...single player, MP all inclusive. I was quite disappointed when I figured out that FOGE only works with FOG2 under the strictest circumstance (only single player FOG E with single player FOG2). I'm clearly not the only one that misunderstood, evidenced by various different threads and forums about people's understanding/misunderstanding of what FOG E will do with FOG2. The better the market understanding the less chance of negative reaction, and greater chance of positive reaction...which means better potential sales. Regardless of whether or not MP functionality ever occurs I sincerely want FOG E to succeed. IMHO MP would only make it greater!

[HeinzHarald]

Since this game is supposed to be highly mod-able, I wonder if it would be possible to more or less hack MP FoG2 results back into the game somehow. It doesn't have to be pretty with two players who trust each other. Let's say a hack that lets you skip the battle and have both players manually enter the damage done to them.

Manually setting up a custom MP FoG2 game doesn't have to be perfect. And you could even build a simple forces translation tool outside of the game.

Edit: for clarification this is not something I'm interested in personally, I'm perfectly happy to stay in Empires (from what I know about the game so far at least). I'd rather have a quicker Empires experience.

[76mm]

OK, that's the decider against buying this game for me. I am not interested in playing FOG2 battles against the AI, but I would like to play a single player Empires campaign game where I could export the main battles to FOG2 multi-player. I would buy Empires then.

Yeah, exporting to single-player FOG2 isn't really interesting to me at all either.

So we end up with what do you want a small design team to do? Spend a lot of time trying to get systems to talk to each other when they were never designed to do that or to balance, polish etc the core game(s)?

I understand that this is a business decision, but in my view, without any kind of multiplayer FOG2 support this game will be just another empire-builder game, maybe better than some but not necessarily something that will draw me away from other games or pursuits. Better FOG2 support would have made this game truly unique. Not to mention the fact that naming the game "Field of Glory: Empires" sure seems to imply a rather closer link between the games than you suggest.

[FightingPoultry]

The second area of awareness is to the market (i.e the potential buyers). When I first read the feature about porting battles to FOG2 there were no exceptions stated. In fact it implies full compatibility with FOG2...single player, MP all inclusive. I was quite disappointed when I figured out that FOGE only works with FOG2 under the strictest circumstance (only single player FOG E with single player FOG2). I'm clearly not the only one that misunderstood, evidenced by various different threads and forums about people's understanding/misunderstanding of what FOG E will do with FOG2. The better the market understanding the less chance of negative reaction, and greater chance of positive reaction...which means better potential sales. Regardless of whether or not MP functionality ever occurs I sincerely want FOG E to succeed. IMHO MP would only make it greater!

Exactly. The game is called Field Of Glory:Empires - the association that Empires is the strategic portion of FOG2 is implicit in all of the marketing. None of the Youtube explainer videos that i have seen mention that you can only play the FOG2 battles in single player mode. To me the idea of fighting MP player battles in the FOG2 is what will set this game apart from all the other ancient empire games around - Imperator Rome only came out a couple of weeks ago. Please reconsider this decision - at least for for 1vs1 MP other wise i think you are missing a huge opportunity to stand out from the rest - This was the sole reason i have been waiting for FOG:E rather than buying Imperator, what good reason should i now wait until July rather than buying some other similar title ? Sorry dont want to sound negative but this is really disappointing imho.

[stockwellpete]

Other bit worth bearing in mind, FoG2 does not try to balance an Empires battle, it uses a translation system to set it up as a reasonable facsimile, so they are not balanced, and I'm not sure how many human players would want to voluntarily take a weakened side?

I think the answer to this is that you would not export a one-sided battle to FOG2 for multi-player. Common sense would tell you that another player picking up a match (having no idea at all that you were playing FOG Empires) where they were hopelessly outnumbered would be most likely just to abandon it (unless you had arranged the battle with someone you knew). So the exporting of battles for MP would only work for fairly evenly matched battles that might occur during the course of a long campaign. All other battles would be resolved using the FOG Empires own battle resolution system, which is adequate for that purpose.

I have looked at some of the Das Tactic videos on You Tube and the game looks very interesting and well-designed, but why would I buy it when I am still blundering around quite happily in Civilisation 5? Yes, Empires has a much tighter historical focus on the ancient world, which is a strong point, but not being able to use FOG2 with it for multi-player is a big negative, I'm afraid. Good luck with the game, anyway.

[devoncop]

The question "why would I buy it when I am still blundering around in Civilisation 5 is a bit like asking " Why would I buy a chess set when I enjoy Monopoly? "

To compare the combat systems of FoG Empires and Civilisation 5 in terms of depth and accuracy stretches the definition of the word " comparable" beyond breaking point in my view.

Civilisation as you point out is no ancient world simulator and is also like many games (and unlike Empires) one in which a snowball effect means beyond a certain point of expansion the game is decided. Most Civ players would agree the late game is its biggest weakness. In contrast, all reports I have got from beta players are that the mid and late game is absolutely fascinating in Empires as the strains of trying to hold together a fast expanded Empire cause decay and often collapse from within.

This can only be tested on release by none beta players but if this is indeed the case then the game can be considered truly unique.

As for the MP issue.....this is a 500 turn game. I am setting a MP game up just after release with 14 players. Even with a short turnaround of 48 hours per turn planned this will take up to 3 years to complete if it makes it to the end. If MP exporting was implemented how long would the turnaround time for turns need to be ? With great commitment maybe a week per turn to accommodate players who wanted to export their battles ?

The campaign would then be scheduled to last almost 10 years !!!

I am just not sure those who are campaigning for MP exporting see all of the problems it could cause in achieving a dynamic strategic campaign which can involve many players.

[loki100]

OK, that's the decider against buying this game for me. I am not interested in playing FOG2 battles against the AI, but I would like to play a single player Empires campaign game where I could export the main battles to FOG2 multi-player. I would buy Empires then.

Yeah, exporting to single-player FOG2 isn't really interesting to me at all either.

So we end up with what do you want a small design team to do? Spend a lot of time trying to get systems to talk to each other when they were never designed to do that or to balance, polish etc the core game(s)?

I understand that this is a business decision, but in my view, without any kind of multiplayer FOG2 support this game will be just another empire-builder game, maybe better than some but not necessarily something that will draw me away from other games or pursuits. Better FOG2 support would have made this game truly unique. Not to mention the fact that naming the game "Field of Glory: Empires" sure seems to imply a rather closer link between the games than you suggest.

Other bit worth bearing in mind, FoG2 does not try to balance an Empires battle, it uses a translation system to set it up as a reasonable facsimile, so they are not balanced, and I'm not sure how many human players would want to voluntarily take a weakened side?

I think the answer to this is that you would not export a one-sided battle to FOG2 for multi-player. Common sense would tell you that another player picking up a match (having no idea at all that you were playing FOG Empires) where they were hopelessly outnumbered would be most likely just to abandon it (unless you had arranged the battle with someone you knew). So the exporting of battles for MP would only work for fairly evenly matched battles that might occur during the course of a long campaign. All other battles would be resolved using the FOG Empires own battle resolution system, which is adequate for that purpose.

I have looked at some of the Das Tactic videos on You Tube and the game looks very interesting and well-designed, but why would I buy it when I am still blundering around quite happily in Civilisation 5? Yes, Empires has a much tighter historical focus on the ancient world, which is a strong point, but not being able to use FOG2 with it for multi-player is a big negative, I'm afraid. Good luck with the game, anyway.

The second area of awareness is to the market (i.e the potential buyers). When I first read the feature about porting battles to FOG2 there were no exceptions stated. In fact it implies full compatibility with FOG2...single player, MP all inclusive. I was quite disappointed when I figured out that FOGE only works with FOG2 under the strictest circumstance (only single player FOG E with single player FOG2). I'm clearly not the only one that misunderstood, evidenced by various different threads and forums about people's understanding/misunderstanding of what FOG E will do with FOG2. The better the market understanding the less chance of negative reaction, and greater chance of positive reaction...which means better potential sales. Regardless of whether or not MP functionality ever occurs I sincerely want FOG E to succeed. IMHO MP would only make it greater!

Exactly. The game is called Field Of Glory:Empires - the association that Empires is the strategic portion of FOG2 is implicit in all of the marketing. None of the Youtube explainer videos that i have seen mention that you can only play the FOG2 battles in single player mode. To me the idea of fighting MP player battles in the FOG2 is what will set this game apart from all the other ancient empire games around - Imperator Rome only came out a couple of weeks ago. Please reconsider this decision - at least for for 1vs1 MP other wise i think you are missing a huge opportunity to stand out from the rest - This was the sole reason i have been waiting for FOG:E rather than buying Imperator, what good reason should i now wait until July rather than buying some other similar title ? Sorry dont want to sound negative but this is really disappointing imho.

ok, one last go at explaining the practicalities.

And just to repeat, Empires was not conceived as a battle generator for FoG2, the scope to link was noted later in development and both sets of developers enthusiastically co-operated both with the unit translation system and the practical link ups.

Now in SP what happens is. Empires knows where FoG2 is stored for you (and lets face it this can be a lot of places), in the turn resolution I opt to export a battle, Empires prepares a file with the units and sends it to where FoG2 is stored. In FoG2 I open a subset of the 'battle' type which accesses this file (and the rule modifications), I fight it to the 60% point, quit FoG2, resume the Empires turn resolution by importing the result, Empires does the pursuit losses and then proceeds. So key is that both game systems know where to send the save/set up files.

In MP? We're playing Empires on the server, run turn resolution, a battle comes up. Now we are not watching this at the same time (the great advantage of PBEM). So which of us (lets just assume this is 1-1 for now) gets to decide its a FoG2 battle. The first player who saw the turn resolution may think there was no point to that one. So how do we resolve this (can't have first come first choose can we?). Anyway, we both agree to move to FoG2, now where does Empires send the files to? Clearly the same file has to go to both players, we both have varying set ups, we then launch an MP FoG2 game to use the save (so presumably it needs a challenge setting up etc), fight it, send it back to Empires (again where does it go, can this be automated for every possible variation of set up routines)?

So there is the very real issue of who consents to move to FoG2, there are a mass of (possibly solvable) practical issues about the file transfer system.

Now if this puts you off buying the game, thats your choices. But its not trivial, its not failing to respond, its a serious commitment of time.

Now just a final thing. You are very vocal on this, are you really sure that the bulk of potential players will only accept Empires if it allows MP both for itself and FoG2?

[stockwellpete]

The question "why would I buy it when I am still blundering around in Civilisation 5 is a bit like asking " Why would I buy a chess set when I enjoy Monopoly? "

Why is it? There is no comparison between chess and Monopoly whereas Civilisation and FOG Empires are both strategic empire building games. And it is the question that I ask myself when I think about spending money on this new game.

To compare the combat systems of FoG Empires and Civilisation 5 in terms of depth and accuracy stretches the definition of the word " comparable" beyond breaking point in my view.

I did not compare the combat systems of the 2 games. You have just made that up.

Civilisation as you point out is no ancient world simulator and is also like many games (and unlike Empires) one in which a snowball effect means beyond a certain point of expansion the game is decided. Most Civ players would agree the late game is its biggest weakness. In contrast, all reports I have got from beta players are that the mid and late game is absolutely fascinating in Empires as the strains of trying to hold together a fast expanded Empire cause decay and often collapse from within.

This can only be tested on release by none beta players but if this is indeed the case then the game can be considered truly unique.

Yes, I am sure FOG Empires has many strengths.

As for the MP issue.....this is a 500 turn game. I am setting a MP game up just after release with 14 players. Even with a short turnaround of 48 hours per turn planned this will take up to 3 years to complete if it makes it to the end. If MP exporting was implemented how long would the turnaround time for turns need to be ? With great commitment maybe a week per turn to accommodate players who wanted to export their battles ?

The campaign would then be scheduled to last almost 10 years !!!

I am just not sure those who are campaigning for MP exporting see all of the problems it could cause in achieving a dynamic strategic campaign which can involve many players.

Well, if you are playing FOG Empires in MP with 10-12 players then using the in-game battle resolution system would be a necessity for the reasons you give. But if you look at my original post you will see that I am talking about me playing a SP FOG Empires game with the ability to play out the key battles in FOG2 MP. The pace of the campaign would be entirely up to me as it would affect only me. Having a FOG2 MP option for FOG Empires would cause absolutely no problems at all for anyone in MP campaigns if the prohibition of exporting of battles to FOG2 MP was made clear from the outset.

[stockwellpete]

ok, one last go at explaining the practicalities.

And just to repeat, Empires was not conceived as a battle generator for FoG2, the scope to link was noted later in development and both sets of developers enthusiastically co-operated both with the unit translation system and the practical link ups.

Yes, understood.

Now in SP what happens is. Empires knows where FoG2 is stored for you (and lets face it this can be a lot of places), in the turn resolution I opt to export a battle, Empires prepares a file with the units and sends it to where FoG2 is stored. In FoG2 I open a subset of the 'battle' type which accesses this file (and the rule modifications), I fight it to the 60% point, quit FoG2, resume the Empires turn resolution by importing the result, Empires does the pursuit losses and then proceeds. So key is that both game systems know where to send the save/set up files.

Understood.

In MP? We're playing Empires on the server, run turn resolution, a battle comes up. Now we are not watching this at the same time (the great advantage of PBEM). So which of us (lets just assume this is 1-1 for now) gets to decide its a FoG2 battle. The first player who saw the turn resolution may think there was no point to that one. So how do we resolve this (can't have first come first choose can we?). Anyway, we both agree to move to FoG2, now where does Empires send the files to? Clearly the same file has to go to both players, we both have varying set ups, we then launch an MP FoG2 game to use the save (so presumably it needs a challenge setting up etc), fight it, send it back to Empires (again where does it go, can this be automated for every possible variation of set up routines)?

So there is the very real issue of who consents to move to FoG2, there are a mass of (possibly solvable) practical issues about the file transfer system.

Yes, I can see the problems here. Maybe players would indicate at the start if they wanted to be able to export key battles to FOG2 and the game engine would then choose the specific battles? This would probably work OK where small numbers of players were involved in a MP game. That might solve one problem but I have no idea about transferring files at all. It sounds like you are saying it might be possible to solve, but that it would be very difficult. How difficult would it be to provide FOG2 multi-player access for someone who was playing FOG Empires in SP though? That is what I'm after. If you are playing FOG Empires in MP then it is probably best with larger numbers of players and then you would use the in-game battle resolution system.

Now if this puts you off buying the game, thats your choices. But its not trivial, its not failing to respond, its a serious commitment of time.

Now just a final thing. You are very vocal on this, are you really sure that the bulk of potential players will only accept Empires if it allows MP both for itself and FoG2?

No, I am not complaining at all. Just requesting. I don't think anyone is suggesting anything about "the bulk of players". Most players are happy to use SP so they are your core market, but from the evidence of this thread there is a constituency of players (no idea of its size) who would like a MP option for FOG2 with the game.

[devoncop]

If you are concerned with SP campaign games being able to export battles to FoG 2 then that facility already exists in Empires so you can indeed play those crucial battles out ....just not in MP.

I respect your opinion on this but maybe we are just looking for different things in a game.

If I want a tactical game based in the early Roman era I will play the excellent FoG2.

If I want a strategic one exclusively based in the same period I will play Empires.

Anyway...it would be boring if we all thought the same !

Have a good day !

[stockwellpete]

If you are concerned with SP campaign games being able to export battles to FoG 2 then that facility already exists in Empires so you can indeed play those crucial battles out ....just not in MP.

Yes, but I can always beat the AI unless it outnumbers me 3 or 4 to 1, so it is not much fun.

I respect your opinion on this but maybe we are just looking for different things in a game.

If I want a tactical game based in the early Roman era I will play the excellent FoG2.

If I want a strategic one exclusively based in the same period I will play Empires.

Anyway...it would be boring if we all thought the same !

Have a good day !

Yes, fair enough.

[loki100]

Lets talk phasing, I've just done a turn on the beta MP so some ideas:

a) as one of the players I do not see all the battles that could have occured - some clearly are AI-AI others involve the players but if I'm not allied, I just don't see it;
b) lets ignore the file integration issue and simply think about phasing
b1) in SP, I can stop the turn processing, do my FoG2 thing, restart turn processing
b2) at the moment in MP, everyone sees the same turn processing - just as above, different slices of it
c) so in MP, we can't allow this one time/everyone turn processing if there is a FoG2 export choice (the results of the FoG2 battle will be very different to that generated by Empires)
d) lets ignore AI-AI
e) Say there are 4 players - Picts, British, Rome and Carthage;
f) the Pictish player starts the turn and the processing just hangs in the air ...
g) why?
h) because there is a potential battle involving one of the others;
i) so we need to stop turn processing till lets say one or both the Roman and Carthaginian players agree (somehow, remember they may not have the same opinion) to export, take the time to fight, import and continue
j) finally our glorious Pict gets the turn to move (a wee bit)
k) it stops again, as the Roman player needs to decide how to handle a vs AI battle
l) our noble Pict gets the turn to process a little bit more and finds a battle with the forces of Perfidious Albion
m) the Pict is happy to resolve with Empires
n) but can't go on till the British player has managed to catch up and makes their choice (& as above, we need a resolution routine when they disagree)

...

z) at some time all 4 players have resolved all the choices, done FoG2 where they wanted ... and remember most of these choices are invisible to the other players.

Its not just a one-off, turn delay due to FoG2, its constant interruption of the turn process (for reasons you most likely can't even see) till all the potential battles are resolved.

Its a 500 turn game.

[stockwellpete]

b1) in SP, I can stop the turn processing, do my FoG2 thing, restart turn processing

But I would be playing Empires in SP. How difficult would it be to enable such SP players to export the battle to FOG2 MP instead of FOG2 SP and then back again? It would avoid most of the other issues, wouldn't it? What would be the phasing be in this situation?

[Asty]

Pretty obvious from the above that FOG:E as designed is simply unsuitable for MP FOG2 adaptation.

I think what the MP contingent should be pushing for is a FOG2 product, or other specifically designed chassis to warehouse strategically linked FOG2 tactical battles

Unless I’m missing something 500 turn games means that only true diehards would use this functionally in FOG:E. It will be hard enough to finish campaigns as is.

FOG:E ain’t your chariot

[devoncop]

Pretty obvious from the above that FOG:E as designed is simply unsuitable for MP FOG2 adaptation.

I think what the MP contingent should be pushing for is a FOG2 product, or other specifically designed chassis to warehouse strategically linked FOG2 tactical battles

Unless I’m missing something 500 turn games means that only true diehards would use this functionally in FOG:E. It will be hard enough to finish campaigns as is.

FOG:E ain’t your chariot

+1

Exacly Asty.

By the way Asty can I confirm you are still happy to play the almost certainly doomed Samnites in our MP game starting on the 18th July (or before if folks are ready) or would you rather switch ?

[FightingPoultry]

b1) in SP, I can stop the turn processing, do my FoG2 thing, restart turn processing

But I would be playing Empires in SP. How difficult would it be to enable such SP players to export the battle to FOG2 MP instead of FOG2 SP and then back again? It would avoid most of the other issues, wouldn't it? What would be the phasing be in this situation?

That seems like a reasonable point - i do understand that the more players involved in MP the more complicated it gets - but for say 2 players who have elected to recreate the Punic wars and are flexible on the timings then how much more difficult would it be to tweak the parameters that currently allows the SP game to interface with FOG2?

[rbodleyscott]

b1) in SP, I can stop the turn processing, do my FoG2 thing, restart turn processing

But I would be playing Empires in SP. How difficult would it be to enable such SP players to export the battle to FOG2 MP instead of FOG2 SP and then back again? It would avoid most of the other issues, wouldn't it? What would be the phasing be in this situation?

That seems like a reasonable point - i do understand that the more players involved in MP the more complicated it gets - but for say 2 players who have elected to recreate the Punic wars and are flexible on the timings then how much more difficult would it be to tweak the parameters that currently allows the SP game to interface with FOG2?

Not at all simple. We don't rule it out at some time in the future, but it certainly isn't going to happen before the game is launched.