Suggestion - Future multiple player per Civ functionality

Just a suggestion. I'm wondering if it's something that's feasible in the game engine or not.

I'm just wondering, and didn't happen across this while searching, but how feasible is it to implement a multiple player-per-civilization function/game mode? Maybe even in a future expansion as a game type.

For example, a friend of mine who enjoys managing economic & research aspects of the game over fleet combat focuses on developing planets and spending credits towards research. At the same time I'm able to build my fleets and use them on a front without having to worry too much about my economic status. To better manage who gets to use how much of what resource (since it's shared), we could have a slider bar that would automatically divvy up a percentage to each player's 'budget' and could easily transfer funds to each other's budget if something was needed (or simply do away with this and just have a shared bank).

The reason I'm suggesting this is because once you start playing the larger maps, the game focuses too much on macro management of planets and fleets mid to late-game and becomes impossible to efficiently micro individual fleets or even ships within them. Creating a game with this feature would allow a 4v4 game with just two races/teams combating each other over several systems, working together as a team to defeat the opposing team while handling different or shared roles. This results in something much more strategic endgame(imho). Players would be able to switch between assisting in combat roles to financial/economic development roles whenever they're needed. Granted, four players on one team may be too much, since some players could get confused as to who is controlling what, especially when multiple fleets clash, but there's probably a possible solution to that which could be relatively simple to implement (visual indicators of some sort).

Of course, you'd have to play this mode with people you're familiar with (or be very trusting of your allies), but this would create a whole new type of play-style and add new elements to the game, as well as players who may even specialize in particular aspects of the game. It could also help newer players get more active in the online community, since you could have games that grant one more experienced player on the team more responsibility (greater percentage of funds for more units to utilize).

This was something that I thought would be a great idea in SW:EaW, especially since battles would take place both on land and in space at the same time. I preferred playing planet-based combat, while most of my friends enjoyed the space-combat. Unfortunately, the game wasn't even nearly as great as SoaSE has already become.

So, anyone out there think this is a possibility? Or at least a good/neat idea that might appear in future real-time strategies?
5,567 views 8 replies
Reply #1 Top
It would be probably better, if two players could manage the same empire. I saw this already in some game.
Reply #2 Top
World in Conflict uses this idea in its multiplayer with fantastic results. One player controls infantry, another armor, another air force, and another support weapons. 4v4 matches with two teams. Pretty fun, but that game is tactics... it seems like it would take a looooot of effort to implement a solution for how two players interact with essentially one interface to control one empire.

So it seems unlikely they'd spend the money to figure it out. Most people who play this game coop will probably be content to form alliances. For example, your economy friend would go TAC and you'd go Vasari... he'd send you all the cash he's not investing to you over the diplomacy screen and you'd form all the offenses, hold his chokepoints. You'd only research weapons and he'd only research civilian tech.

Makes me wish I had a friend to play with. :(
Reply #3 Top
Wow. I had totally forgot about World in Conflict. That game really does shine when it comes to the multiplayer aspects. Looks freakin' amazing as well.

I guess that latter part of robosextoid's post sums up the best alternative to allying with friends. Only problem there is you're really dedicating your role in teamplay, as opposed to leaving it open to change when support is needed. Is there a 'fee' to sending resources to another player over the diplomacy screen? If so, there's probably no real incentive to going this route. If not, this could be pretty sick, since the economic focused player wouldn't be hampered by upkeep at all, while the other teammate would be unfazed by the upkeep cost (since he won't have any planets/income to pay for in the first place).
Reply #4 Top
Quite a few games have this. Starcraft and Rise of Nations are two that pop into my head. For those two two players just share control of everything and would be up to them how they they managed control and resource allocatement
Reply #5 Top
Well, for now, you can jury-rig a solution. You would start as two empires, he does all the expanding and you have two or three systems that are heavily fortified (you need to have enough systems to get 8 military researches and a bunch of shipyards). He runs the economy of all his planets, and can give credits metal and crystals to you as needed, and you can handle all of the military stuff.

Essentially you'd end up as sort of one empire, no money lost or anything, although both of your research trees would be independant of each other.
Reply #6 Top
You can't dodge upkeep doing this. When you send credits, they're taxed by the receiving players upkeep. You know, two certainties in life: taxes and siege frigate spam.
Reply #7 Top
Makes sense that you'd get taxed when sending credits to allies.

On another note, I was talking with a friend about this game and he mentioned Hegemonia: Legions of Iron. We found his old CD of it and tried it out over a LAN and I'm amazed at how similar it is to Sins. The game's scale is much much smaller (compared to 100+ planet maps), but I'm having a blast playing the co-op campaign. It literally does what I stated earlier: puts both players in control of the same civ at the same time. The only issues I've had so far is the UI is very... old and the controls are not even close to SoaSE. The game was made back in 2002. It looks amazing considering its age, pretty much comparable to SoaSE. Another friend of mine says that the game's pretty boring once the campaign progresses though, but I have yet to cross that point at the moment. :/

Anyone else played it before or think Stardock could use any aspects from that game in SoaSE?
Reply #8 Top
what they should really do is add an observer mode, and then players can allow certain observers control over certain things (units, buildings, planets, a designated fleet, research, etc), that way the main player could give one of his "Ministers" control over an assault fleet, while another is incharge of production and defence, and etc.