It's not an option we can have in day 0 at this point because it's not been in our QA matrix in some weeks now.

We can revisit tactical battles as an option in MP for a future free update. But there's no scenario where it will be in for day 0.

It's going to be high on our list to release no matter what because we want to have tactical battles available as a stand alone game mode because THAT is fun for a large percentage of people.

The only feature in MP that is likely to be "gimped" for a long while are the quests and even that we may put back in as an option at some point for custom games.

I agree.  When you guys start making your own tactical battle maps it'll become really obvious the kinds of things you can do.

I stated this in the main thread but I ll add it here for the sake of completeness:

I subscribe all opinions above that advocate putting teh tacticals battle back in the MP game. This game for me had it all to play with other friends etc. But if this is not the case it has lost 90% of its appeal.

In a game like this is probably a must a kind of "We-Go" system where all players orders are resolved simultaneously. Which begs a pbem approach. I presume that play by mail has been considered already as an optionto solve the "waiting for others battles" issue and it has been discarded?

In any event I believe MP tactical battles should have been left as a user option/toggle (yes/no) in the game menu. Under the proposed system you will never have proper feedback from day 1 as only one option (no tactical battles) has been enforced.

I believe that I decided to pre order all too quickly, so I will be cancelling my pre order right away and reserve my purchase for when I see a reasonable MP system.

Shame! and keep it up.

it up.

Regards,

Viajero

I'd suggest it as a non-custom option.  It's better (if practical) to give folks too many options then few.  Let the playerbase decide what is standard after a few flamewars and stakings, always seems to work for the best.

I think the stand alone tactical battles should be a lower priority- as I think for it to be used, it would have to be Total War-esque good.  Then again, I could be dead wrong on that- I always end up underestimating what can be done.

Yes, I know that now.   But I think it was useful to bring the thread up because it provides clarification on what they're doing, and also suggests they *are* working hard on some cool new game modes that are interesting all the time.  I think I (and maybe others) will just wait and see on what the "Elemental" future holds.  

Go Stardock and Elemental!  

Best regards,
Steven. 

Can someone explain to me how you would deal with multiplayer tactical battles causing other players to have to sit and wait until your done? Its a bit much to have to wait 5 mins between turns because 2 or more players are in a tactical battle and your not.

Timers wouldn't work it would just cause miss-clicks and frustration. Basically you cant mix the two and not cause huge gameplay delays.

Well there is one way you could do it.....

Spawn a new window that you can drag around. Have the tactical battle play out in that window over a maximum of 3 turns in the multiplayer game. If the player can pull off the battle in that time frame its resolved and you move on. However if you fail to resolve the tactical battle in the time it takes the main multiplayer game to cycle 3 turns... it auto decides the battle.

If you did it like this the players could manage their main game at the same time as tactical battles were being fought. Sure your battles now have the potential to run up to 3 turns long but that's a small price to pay for tactical battles and main game simultaneous play.

Whatcha think?

I honestly dont see that much of a problem in tactical battles for MP. It has been done a few times; AoW allowed you to at least watch the fight, which CAN keep you entertained (but the problem with that is, if you and your buddies are not cooperating but playing something deathmatch-like, it is a spoiler of his army). Heroes of Might and Magic V allowed you to skim through your cities and "plan ahead" and you even had a ghost to move about the map while you weren't on your turn.

I do agree that tactical battles in MP are important. They are maybe less important in random online games, but even today, there are groups of close friends that come over to LAN or play through Hamachi in their private networks just to team up against the AI and enjoy a game together. Tactical battles in this case ARE the a blast and form a good half of the fun in these kinds of games.

Personally, I have a friend who does not play CivIV or EU3 with me just for the sole fact that battles are more of a roll of a dice, rather than actual battle. I tried to tell him that he misses a lot, but alas, the battles are too crucial for my persuassion skills

I think combination of HoMaMV and AoW style would do best. Allow the player to issue build/train orders in his cities and such and also allow him (through a notification icon to the right, for example) to jump to the battle to watch at his whim. To deal with the before-mentioned army spoiling, this feature could work only for allied players.

Hell, you can seriously add a mini game of Pong or something. As long as the player doesn't have to stare at a big ugly box saying "You are not on turn, my divine all-powerful Sovereign." or "There is a tactical battle taking place, which even someone gifted with magical clairvoyance such as you cannot see or alter, m'lord.", but has something to keep himself occupied instead, it will do.

Thinking about the tactical battles, I just realized the single biggest OH MY GOD THATS AWESOME tactical battle feature that Age of Wonders had, was the fact that battles could have multiple parties involved, if they were placed adjacent to the attacked tile. This really is the king of cooperative-tactical-battles-in-multiplayer features. If that isn't too inconvienient to implement.....you get me what I am pointing at..

None, as anybody who was hoping for MP had already pre-ordered when the bad news hit the press.

Cheers,

V.