Please add more singleplayer content!

My understanding is that the majority of RTS players are casual players like myself, who mostly play campaign and skirmish. This video sums up what’s going on with RTS games these days pretty well: The Next Major RTS Will Fail. This Is Why. - YouTube

Essentially, there’s a bias among developers towards competitive, hardcore players, since they are the loudest voices and most active players. People like me don’t play as often and aren’t as active in the community, but we make up the vast majority of players.

For both the health of the game (and of course because I think it would be great!), if any devs are reading this, could you please consider adding more singleplayer content to the game? Here are a couple ideas:

  1. make the multiplayer-only maps like Archipelago (and I think 30 years war?) be playable in skirmish as well, and upgrade the AI to handle the diplomacy game setting in a graceful way (if this isn’t already the case???). In general, it would be nice if anything you can do online can also be played offline with bots.
  2. Add brand new historical battles; the ones in the game thus far are fantastic!
  3. A wave defense mode, or some kind of progressively more difficult defense mode would be a great addition to the franchise. Empires Apart did this well, where every few minutes, waves of enemies would attack your base in larger and larger numbers, and the goal was to survive as long as possible.

Also, for those of us who don’t have a lot of time to play, or may have missed items the first time around, it would be nice if there was a way to unlock cosmetics (I’m really only interested in explorer customizations) awarded from past events.

Thanks for reading :slight_smile:


Great video essay. Thanks for sharing it.

Agreed on all points.


They’ve added a lot of single player content a couple of months ago.

I do think they are aware of that.

1 Like

But notice how the first few DLCs added new historical battles, while the latest DLC added none? Historical maps aren’t quite the same, and are a move towards greater multiplayer focus. Regardless of their track record, I just want the devs to be aware of the interest in singleplayer content going forward.


That would be really great. I hope we can get another campaign someday, but if not that, then some more historical battles.


The last dlc gave co-op mission which yu can do it alone without a friend

What??? Are you saying that Knights of the Mediterranean included a singleplayer/co-op mission? I don’t remember that being the case. Or are you referring to the co-op historical battles update? I don’t think that was part of the KotM DLC, and didn’t add any new content, just new ways to play existing content. Or did you mean something else entirely?


They could make the historical maps more accessible rather than hidden in the map list.
Simply set the factions to historically accurate factions, let the player use the “hero” faction, add a few voice lines, and it can be added to historical battles.


Yes, RTS that are too focused on sports don’t offer the things that the average gamer is looking for.


I think historical maps are better than historical battles and can be played over and over again. A different experience every time

Also I think most players forget we have a “Bombard Brawl” mission under Challenges. I hope the devs add more challenges since it has its own leaderboards too. The game requires some sort of progression system besides unlocking cosmetics for home cities.

1 Like

They aren’t really comparable just because they both have the word “historical” in their names. Historical battles or single player missions are one thing, multiplayer skirmish with objectives is another. Game modes in strategy games that have objectives to push and pull players isn’t a new concept, and neither is the ability to stick AI in those modes.


@ArrivedLeader22 @CliffyCoder8489
There’s actually an option in the map selector to only view historical maps. They are accessible, but like @KingStarscream9 pointed out, they’re not the same as the historical battles. They don’t offer the same kind of carefully crafted experience of varied objectives, factions, decks, and scenarios that historical battles do. They are definitely a welcome addition to the game, but they are closer to glorified skirmish maps with gimmicks than they are to singleplayer scenarios.


Yeah, I wonder if we’ll ever get another challenge mission? I’ve seen it there and played it once. It’d be nice to see more progression systems in place.

1 Like

I can accept Black family story been scraped part to be add.
As long as they don’t make mistake as Act 3:Steel where Simón Bolívar Revolution and Mexican-American War, Act 1:Japan Battle of Sekigahara with Siege of Osaka’s timeline order being opposite…

Or Act 3:Steel Last City of the Inca’s Pacasmayo city is a coastal one and was founded by the Spanish in 1775.
Act 3:India Company Confrontation located Shimla where landlocked city in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh and surrounded by the Himalaya foothillsbut, but features a coast…