Multiplayer

[LionSaurus]

Does this game have online multiplayer? Seems only to have split screen based on what I can see on the steam page.

[Shadrach]

Yes, at the moment only hotseat play, unfortunately. I'm still hoping they'll add support for online or PBEM-style (with password) multiplayer. Maybe they can also do the PBEM through the Steam API, that would be awesome.

[Star Paladin]

Ya, that's why I and my entire wargaming friend mass don't get this. Just crazy to release a game of this genre without online MP. Oh well, looks like we all get one of the other wargames on steam.

[voltigeur]

agreed, it really needs a PBEM system.

[DaviddesJ]

It's designed as a fairly asymmetrical system. While the computer player plays by the same rules as the human player, the computer only plays defensively while the human plays offense. I'm not saying you couldn't design scenarios that would have both offense and defense for both players, but it's not how it's primarily set up now.

[Red Dragon]

I assume there were very few people playing UoC1 in MP hence the decision was made to not spend resources on it in UoC2. Which is sad because I would actually like to play some multiplayer... you can probably make it work with hotseat mode but I assume in that case you'd have to trust the other person to look away during your turn.

Let's hope the game and the dlc's sell well so it becomes a possibility for the future.

[Star Paladin]

I'm old. So old that when Online Multiplayer started coming with games, it's was a rare miracle. Over the decades, OM became just standard with games, and it was great like always getting sliced bread when you buy bread (ya, bread used to be sold unsliced).

But then this "Play Together" BS started, and game developers started saying "Gee Whilikers, we have Play Together, so don't need to do OM any more". Ya, ya they do need to keep doing OM.

Play Together is the porta potty of Online Multiplayer. People only use it because they absolutely have to and there is nothing else available.

[3Form]

Originally posted by Red Dragon:

I assume there were very few people playing UoC1 in MP hence the decision was made to not spend resources on it in UoC2. Which is sad because I would actually like to play some multiplayer... you can probably make it work with hotseat mode but I assume in that case you'd have to trust the other person to look away during your turn.

Let's hope the game and the dlc's sell well so it becomes a possibility for the future.

I think you're right and I feel kind of guilty because I always wanted to try UoC1 in multiplayer but never got round to it.

Like David says, it's asymmetrical but I'd be really curious to see how a human puts up a defence when compared to the AI. I suspect that it would be quite different and that the 'bad habits' you learn as a result of the AI's predictability would need to be unlearned.

You have a point Star, but remember that it's not an easy task to get netcode in place (even if they could use SteamWorks). And if only a tiny percentage of players will even use it (like in the first game) then is it really worth their time and effort?

Having said that a MP campaign - with conference features for both sides - would be amazing. Even with the asymmetry.

[DaviddesJ]

If you aren't tied to historical scenarios then you could imagine constructing lane-type scenarios like LOL, which I don't know much about but as I understand it each side can be on offense in some lanes and on defense in others. The UOC2 system could adapt well to that.

[3Form]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ:

If you aren't tied to historical scenarios then you could imagine constructing lane-type scenarios like LOL, which I don't know much about but as I understand it each side can be on offense in some lanes and on defense in others. The UOC2 system could adapt well to that.

Interesting idea. I'm not so wedded to the idea that multiplayer has to be conventionally competitive for both sides. I like the idea of the duration of denying/delaying objectives being a measure of success.

You could keep things somewhat competitive by playing mirror matches. Whoever gets the best result - as the offensive player - would 'win' the match.

[DaviddesJ]

I'm just not sure it would be very interesting to play defense. I could be wrong.

[Red Dragon]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ:

I'm just not sure it would be very interesting to play defense. I could be wrong.

I played some MP as Soviets in UoC1 and it was quite fun because while I couldn't win it essentially became an excercise in trolling and approaching it with the mindset that your only purpose is to delay the enemy as much as possible to lower their score. I think that was the key to enjoying it.

[DaviddesJ]

That does make some sense. I don't pay too much attention to the factors that go into score. I assume casualties are a big part of it? So localized spoiling attacks that just inflict some casualties or delay capture of an objective would be a goal for the defender, even if they can't change the ultimate outcome.