NO MULTIPLAYER????

[Marshal Villars]

Seriously. WTF. I thought NO GAME has no multi anymore. Especially one which depends on the function of AI which is easily trounced once the player has spent 20 hours gaming. These game makers have to get their act together on this otherwise game with potential. I am out. B.S. I told THREE friends they should buy this so we can play together. They were excited about my recommendation on what I called the "best pre-WW2 tactical simulation ever". Without multi, I have already sent out messages telling them to forget it. No need to waste their money. Playing against the computer? This is sooooo 1990s.

Some are arguing that Gettysburg multi was so unpopular that it does not make economic sense to add it to UG: Civil War. However, someone below stated that the reason the Gettysburg may have had a weak multi player community was because of weak implementation. No custom battles. Limited scenario options.

[Operation Iraqi Freikorps]

It has been stated that multiplayer will not be included in this game. I remember seeing something about how small the percentage of the player base used multiplayer in Gettysburg, and so it was decided not to include it in this game. The AI changes from battle attempt to battle attempt, and the variety of scenarios can add to the longitivity of the game.

[Kolakhan]

Considering you have spent no time with the AI of this game, how would you know? Bye.

[Marshal Villars]

Dear Kolakhan. I played about 30 hours. I ASSUMED since Gettysburg had multi that this game would also when I bought it. But I was stupid not to check. I think without multi this is really a weak buy.

[[TFM]bobcat]

Originally posted by chris.mockba:

Dear Kolakhan. I played about 30 hours. I ASSUMED since Gettysburg had multi that this game would also when I bought it. But I was stupid not to check. I think without multi this is really a weak buy.

Its really not a weak buy in any sense of the word. In any case, as Teegardin said, multiplayer was dead practically from the get go in their previous game so you wouldn't have many people to play with in this game anyway, you arent missing much without it

[Stone]

Funny people say how dead the multiplayer was in the other game. Maybe that was from how poorly they did the multiplayer in the other game. After playing this game I bought Gettysburg just for the multiplayer in it but was sadly dissapointed in how they handled it. 1.Very small selection in battles 2.No way to have custom multiplayer battles 3.Battles seemed really short on time limit I was all for some kind of multiplayer for this title especialy with all the improvemets that they made to the control and user interface. This game is decent, as you can see I have quite a few hours into it but there still isn't a day that my friends and I wish we could face off in this game.

[🍁 Seb]

I must admit that a multiplayer mode and co-op (2 vs 2) would have been really great. :-P

[[TFM]bobcat]

Originally posted by Seb:

I must admit that a multiplayer mode and co-op (2 vs 2) would have been really great. :-P

I definetely agree on the coop, would have been nice to be able to do a campaign alongside a friend and have the benefit of another pair of eyes to keep track of everything

[Operation Iraqi Freikorps]

Coop could have been fun. The different AI buffs and general aggressiveness changes between difficulties. Bull run on Colonel is very different from Bull run on Major General. Single player is fairly well developed.

[Bramborough]

I'd never claim that UCGW features an AI which approaches a human player. That just doesn't happen...not in a consumer entertainment game for a few dollars a copy, anyway. But I do think that the AI is markedly better than in many other games of this genre. It certainly beats the most obvious competitor in the Total War games.

To me the real game isn't on the battlefield, but rather managing the army through a long campaign to meet the challenge of the Richmond/Washington finale. I haven't read anyone express it quite this way, but they've built the campaign such that the game isn't "can you beat the AI?", but rather "can you beat the AI - by a big enough margin - 40 times in a row?".

But anyway, yeah, if it didn't meet your expectations - however ill-informed - with multiplayer, fair enough. Just ask for the refund on the game. Shrug.

[[TFM]bobcat]

Originally posted by Bramborough:

I'd never claim that UCGW features an AI which approaches a human player. That just doesn't happen...not in a consumer entertainment game for a few dollars a copy, anyway. But I do think that the AI is markedly better than in many other games of this genre. It certainly beats the most obvious competitor in the Total War games.

To me the real game isn't on the battlefield, but rather managing the army through a long campaign to meet the challenge of the Richmond/Washington finale. I haven't read anyone express it quite this way, but they've built the campaign such that the game isn't "can you beat the AI?", but rather "can you beat the AI - by a big enough margin - 40 times in a row?".

But anyway, yeah, if it didn't meet your expectations - however ill-informed - with multiplayer, fair enough. Just ask for the refund on the game. Shrug.

I'd say thats a good way to describe it. Playing the historical battles is easy because you can play it however you want and still win. With the campaign, especially on MG and even more so on Legendary, you can win the battle in terms of achieving the objective but still lose because you suffered too many casualties doing so. Enough of those kind of pyrrhic victories and you will be out of manpower and be faced with a losing proposition

[Lao Dan]

I, for one, am happy to have a game that focus on single player instead of making it an afterthought that gets maybe a quarter of the resources of multiplayer.

[Harry Flashman]

After 500 (glorious) hours, I still can't imagine playing this against people... I pause too much!

[Searry]

Well I hope the next game in the series gets multi. I agree with the OP.

[Marshal Villars]

Yes. Cooperative mode would have been great. One player per corps. Dear God. What a missed opportunity. Seriously, as soon as I made this discovery, all game play stopped. Playing against the computer? That is sooooo 1990s.

[korben dallas]

Originally posted by chris.mockba:

Yes. Cooperative mode would have been great. One player per corps. Dear God. What a missed opportunity. Seriously, as soon as I made this discovery, all game play stopped. Playing against the computer? That is sooooo 1990s.

The whole point of the single player in this game is that your army is carried over from battle to battle. It grows, gains experience, you buy new weapons and hire new leaders. That would be more than really hard to do in a multiplayer setting.

As far as single player being 1990s...well everything comes full circle, doesn't it? Capability for a better AI will only grow with time, and playing against an AI has inherent advantages as stated above.