More multiplayer formats/options one day?

[the_iron_duke]

So, are any of these multiplayer formats/options going to be included in the game at some point?

1) Each player choosing which army they want to play with, without knowing what army one's opponents has picked until after army selection.

]2) Randomization of sides for games where the the two armies are decided by the player setting up the game.

3) Pot luck vs Pot Luck with historical and geographic filters utilized.

4) Pot luck with player able to choose troops rather than having them auto-selected.

Also possibly:

5) The hidden army format of 1) described above, plus geographic/historic filters. So Player A picks an army and Player B picks an army based on the geographic/historical filter selection of Player A's army (and without knowing what Player A's army was until after selection, although it might conceivably be possible to guess if one has good knowledge of the game's geographic/historic army match-ups).

[stockwellpete]

And the paired game option for multi-player that we had in FOG1. At the moment you have to pre-arrange the paired game with passwords for two separate matches.

[rbodleyscott]

So, are any of these multiplayer formats/options going to be included in the game at some point?

1) Each player choosing which army they want to play with, without knowing what army one's opponents has picked until after army selection.

This is on the wishlist.

2) Randomization of sides for games where the the two armies are decided by the player setting up the game.

Might be harder to implement.

3) Pot luck vs Pot Luck with historical and geographic filters utilized.

This is already how Pot Luck works

4) Pot luck with player able to choose troops rather than having them auto-selected.

This is on the wishlist.

5) The hidden army format of 1) described above, plus geographic/historic filters. So Player A picks an army and Player B picks an army based on the geographic/historical filter selection of Player A's army (and without knowing what Player A's army was until after selection, although it might conceivably be possible to guess if one has good knowledge of the game's geographic/historic army match-ups).

Maybe

[the_iron_duke]

I think the new Pot Luck vs Pot Luck format with geographical/historical settings and maps conforming to the chosen armies is a good format. The main thing keeping me from playing it is that one can't choose one's force composition. I'd hazard to guess that most players would prefer to customize their troop selection, if the option was available to do so.

The way maps are chosen seems to do a fairly good job, but I'm not sure it's ideal. For example, Arab vs Roman came up on a Mediterranean map, and the way things are set up I think it would always be on such a map, and never a Middle Eastern map. Would it not also mean that an Alexander the Great army would only ever fight Persians on a Mediterranean map and never a Middle Eastern map?

Both of these scenarios I think would be better if there was a chance for both Mediterranean and Middle Eastern maps to appear, perhaps 50/50. So Alexander's Macedonian Greeks vs Persians would be 50/50 as to whether it would be a Mediterranean map, representing Asia Minor, or a Middle Eastern map, representing Mesopotamia and Persia.

[the_iron_duke]

There are lots of match-ups with the current map system that mean it will always represent one side attacking another, and many match-ups will probably be historical what-ifs in any case. For example, it will always be the Pontics attacking the Bosporans because the map in this match-up wll always be North European and not Mediterranean. Spanish vs Gallics will always be the Spanish attacking the Gallics, because the map will always be North European and not Mediterranean.

One way of improving it might be to give each army a primary map type, which is their preferred one, and secondary ones that they are also capable of playing on. Such as:

Scots-Irish

Primary: North European
Secondary: None

Roman

Primary: Mediterranean
Secondary: North European, Middle Eastern, (Steppe), (Desert)

Arab

Primary: Middle Eastern
Secondary: Mediterranean, (Desert)

Gallic:

Primary: North European
Secondary: Mediterranean

Spanish:

Primary: Mediterranean
Secondary: North European

Macedonian Greek

Primary: Mediterranean
Secondary: Middle Eastern, North European

Persian

Primary: Middle Eastern
Secondary: Mediterranean, (Steppe), (Desert)

The rules would be:

a) Map to be used must be listed in both armies' available types, either as primary or secondary map type.
b) If both primary map types are the same, then that's what the map shall be, but if they aren't the same, then it's a 50/50 between the two armies' primary map types.

So a Roman army vs Scots-Irish could only be on a North European map.

A Gallic vs Scots-Irish would only be a North European map. A Gallic vs Spanish, however, would have a 50% chance of it being North European and 50% chance of it being Mediterranean, since one has North European as a primary and the other has Mediterranean as a primary, and they are both capable of playing on both map types through their secondary map type possibilities.

In the same way, Macedonian Greek vs Persian would be 50/50 chance of the map being Mediterranean or Middle Eastern. Arab vs Roman would also be 50/50 this way, and could represent hypothetical historical incursions by either side.

One thing to consider is whether this is always intending to strictly follow the historical narrative, or whether alternative what-ifs are possible. For example, with the current system, Rome vs the Gallics will always be fought on North European maps, and that probably represents reality of Rome attacking Gaul. But the Pot Luck vs Pot Luck format throws up lots of historical what-ifs, albeit plausible ones, anyway, so should there be a possibility that the Gauls might instead have attacked their Roman neighbours, and thus there is a chance that they fight on a Mediterranean map? There were Gauls in the south of France on the Mediterranean coast in any case, so the possibility of fighting on a Mediterranean map would be appropriate.

EDIT: Just looking at how this system might work for the Indians. If Alexander's Macedonian Greeks had a Tropical Secondary map type, they'd fight the Indians on a Tropical map. Indians vs Mountain Indians would be 50/50 between a Tropical and Middle Eastern map. It's sad that the current system means that Indians can only fight on Tropical maps, as the Middle-Eastern maps would be just as suitable for parts of their domain, and it would be nice to see them fight on these maps sometimes.

Alexander's Macedonian Greek

Primary: Mediterranean
Secondary: Middle Eastern, North European, Tropical, (Desert)

Indians

Primary: Tropical
Secondary: Middle Eastern, (Desert)

Mountain Indian

Primary: Middle Eastern
Secondary: Tropical, (Desert)

[Lancier]

I wonder if a 2vs2 fog2 mp game would be possible on the server someday ? ^^

More multiplayer formats/options one day?

[TheGrayMouser]

I wonder if a 2vs2 fog2 mp game would be possible on the server someday ? ^^

More multiplayer formats/options one day?

This would be an amazing addition.

[the_iron_duke]

Here are the map profiles currently used by the armies in Rise of Rome, with the map types sorted in order of priority in which they are utilized.

Libyan is Mediterranean but could perhaps be Desert or Middle Eastern, as the area's mostly desert except for the area round Kyrene. I see the Arabs' map profile is Desert, rather than Middle Eastern. Since Egypt and the Levant are Middle Eastern, it's a bit strange that the Arabs will only fight Romans on Mediterranean maps. I think the reverse would be more likely.

TROPICAL:

Indian 500 BC - 319 AD / T
Indo-Greek 175 BC - 10 AD / T
Indo-Parthian 60 BC - 130 AD / T
Indo-Skythian 95 BC - 50 AD / T
Kushan 130 BC - 476 AD / T

NORTH EUROPEAN:

Ancient British 60 BC - 80 AD / N
Bosporan 348-85 BC / N
Bosporan 84-11 BC / N
Dacian 50 BC - 106 AD / N
Gallic 300-101 BC / N
Gallic 100-50 BC / N
Germanic Foot Tribes 105 BC - 259 AD / N
Rhoxolani 350 BC - 24 AD / N
Sarmatian 350 BC - 24 AD / N
Scots-Irish 50 BC - 476 AD / N
Thracian 350 BC - 46 AD / N

MEDITERANNEAN:

Apulian 420-203 BC / M
Bithynian 297-74 BC / M
Bruttian or Lucanian 420-203 BC / M
Campanian 280-203 BC / M
Carthaginian 280-263 BC / M
Carthaginian 262-236 BC / M
Carthaginian 235-146BC / M
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 218-217 BC / M
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC / M
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC / M
Galatian 280-63 BC / M
Galatian 63-25 BC / M
Greek 280-228 BC / M
Greek 227-146 BC / M
Greek (Western) 280-49 BC / M
Illyrian 350 BC - 25 AD / M
Italian Hill Tribes 490-275 BC / M
Libyan 220 BC - 70 AD / M
Ligurian 480-145 BC / M
Macedonian 320-261 BC / M
Macedonian 260-148 BC / M
Numidian or Moorish 220-56 BC / M
Numidian or Moorish 55 BC - 6 AD / M
Pergamene 262-191 BC / M
Pergamene 190-129 BC / M
Pontic 281-111 BC / M
Pontic 110-85 BC / M
Pontic 84-47 BC / M
Pyrrhic 280-272 BC / M
Roman 280-220 BC / M
Roman 219-200 BC / M
Roman 199-106 BC / M
Roman 105-25 BC / M
Samnite 355-272 BC / M
Seleucid 205-167 BC / M
Slave Revolt 73-71 BC / M
Spanish 300-10 BC / M
Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC / M
Syracusan 280-211 BC / M
Umbrian 490-260 BC / M

MIDDLE EASTERN:

Armenian 331 BC - 252 AD / ME
Armenian (Tigranes) 83-69 BC / ME
Atropatene 320-145 BC / ME
Atropatene 144 BC - 226 AD / ME
Caucasian 320 BC - 476 AD / ME
Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC / ME
Iberian or Colchian 331 BC - 252 AD / ME
Jewish 167-64 BC / ME
Jewish 64 BC - 6 AD / ME
Kappadokian 260 BC - 17 AD / ME
Mountain Indian 492-170 BC / ME
Parthian 250 BC - 225 AD / ME
Ptolemaic 320-167 BC / ME
Ptolemaic 166-56 BC / ME
Ptolemaic 55-30 BC / ME
Seleucid 320-206 BC / ME
Seleucid 166-125 BC / ME
Seleucid 124-63 BC / ME

DESERT:

Arab 312 BC - 476 AD / D
Nabataean 260 BC - 106 AD / D

STEPPE:

Saka 300 BC - 50 AD / S
Skythian 300 BC - 50 AD / S

[the_iron_duke]

Sarmatians could perhaps be Steppe. Compare locations of Sarmatia and the Eurasian Steppe Belt in the following pictures.

[rbodleyscott]

Sarmatians could perhaps be Steppe. Compare locations of Sarmatia and the Eurasian Steppe Belt in the following pictures.

True, but later in the period the Sarmatians migrated off the Steppe.

[the_iron_duke]

I've thought of a new system for arranging maps for multiplayer games. I've yet to decide whether I think it's better or worse than the other alternative system that I have described previously in this thread. EDIT: I've concluded that this is the better of the two systems I've proposed.

This system would involve sorting the armies by aggression/expansionist level. The top level, like Romans, Macedonians, Persians would always fight on their opponent's map type. If two opponents were of the same aggression/expansion level and had different map types, then it would be a 50/50 which map type it would be.

I'm not sure how many categories/levels there should be, but it could be as little as two. Some examples of armies and categories:

I (high aggression/expansion) - Romans, Skythians, Saka, Tigranes the Great Armenian, Macedonians, Persians, Galatians, Seleucid, Ptolemaic, Arabs
II (low aggression/expansion) - Scots-Irish, Ancient British, Apulian, Slave Revolt, Bosporan, Pontic, Kappadokian

There could potential be a middle category. Take Rome vs Arabs. With two tiers, it would be a 50/50 between whether it was a Desert or Mediterranean map. If the Arabs were in a middle of three tiers, then it would always be fought in the Desert.

[the_iron_duke]

Some examples:

Bosporan vs Pontic

Current system: Always North European map
Proposed system: Would produce a 50/50 chance of either North European or Mediterranean map

Indian vs anyone

Current system: Always Tropical map
Proposed system: There'd be potential for other maps. For example, if Indians and Mountain Indians were the same aggression/expansion level, then there'd be a 50/50 chance of it being Tropical or Middle Eastern.

Macedonians vs Persians

Current System: Always Mediterranean map
Proposed system: Would produce a 50/50 chance of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern map

Romans vs Parthians

Current System: Always Mediterranean map
Proposed system: Would depend on what aggression/expansion level the Parthians were given, but would be 50% chance of Mediterranean/50% Middle Eastern if both were set to same high aggression/expansion level.

Romans vs Jewish

Current System: Always Mediterranean map (despite Judaea being Middle Eastern map style)
Proposed system: The Romans would have higher aggression/expansion level, so battles would always take place on Middle Eastern map.

Gallic vs Spanish (or any Italian tribe, apart from the Romans)

Current system: Always North European map
Proposed system: Would produce a 50/50 chance of either North European or Mediterranean map.

[the_iron_duke]

I've been thinking how this proposed system would work with future expansions, specifically with the Mongol horse-archer armies, which will presumably be of the Steppe map type.

No-one went to fight the Mongols in the Steppe. So I think the top level of aggression/expansion would be best reserved for horse-archer raider-type armies, which would include the Skythians and Saka. So the Romans, Macedonians and Persians would now therefore be the second level down, and thus their respective home maps would be used against such armies (as they would be the "defender" in these instances).

Aggression/Expansion rating:

Level I - Horse raiders, e.g. Skythians, Saka, Mongols
Level II - Empire builders, e.g. Rome, Persia, Macedon etc
Level III - Everyone else, e.g. Italian tribes, Spanish, Jewish, Britons etc

[the_iron_duke]

So no-one else has any thoughts on this? The second system I suggested clearly provides for a much more realistic allocation of maps than the current system, and the examples provided prove that beyond any doubt.

A reminder of what the current system is:

The map type will be chosen using the map set most appropriate to the opposing nations. Where these have different home map sets, the game will use the highest priority map set in the following list (highest to lowest): Tropical, Northern Europe, Mediterranean, Middle East, Steppe, Desert. This is loosely based on the general trend of historical invasions.

I would hope that most people could appreciate that the current system, while better than an absolute randomization of maps, is rudimentary to say to say the least, and that a system that treats each army individually on the basis of its historical record is going to be preferable to one that is a blanket one-size-fits-all system based purely on an army's geography and climate.

[stockwellpete]

So no-one else has any thoughts on this? The second system I suggested clearly provides for a much more realistic allocation of maps than the current system, and the examples provided prove that beyond any doubt.
I would hope that most people could appreciate that the current system, while better than an absolute randomization of maps, is rudimentary to say to say the least, and that a system that treats each army individually on the basis of its historical record is going to be preferable to one that is a blanket one-size-fits-all system based purely on an army's geography and climate.

Yes, I think your idea is very interesting. The more historically realistic map allocation can be, the better. I cannot see any problems with doing it this way, but there are 1001 things to be done by the developers so prioritisation may be the determining factor, at least in the short-term anyway.