Multiplayer - how?

[narmox]

Ok, so, the game doesn't have multiplayer (yet). People complained that it didn't have it.

Firaxis's answer: "we concentrated on single-player play first, and we're still thinking about how to implement multiplayer."

I fully agree with them. In its current incarnation, _how_ would civ3 function in a multiplayer environment? I like the game, I really like it, but I've been trying to imagine playing multiplayer like it is now. I think it would be impossible.. Especially when turns get long... Civ2 had the same problems really. You played a few minutes, then waited and waited while your opponents each played a few minutes, and so on. Civ2 just improved a little bit by allowing you to do stuff in your cities between your turns, but that's all.

Freeciv tried to improve on this by having everyone do their turn at the same time. So it's kinda like a "real-time turned-base strategy game". That sounds great at first, except when you get in a war, one guy's on a 28.8 modem and the other is on cable. Communication between the server and the cable-client is so fast that you can move many units and conquer cities before the guy on dialup even manages to move a few units to counter-attack.

So, my question is... To all of you who want multiplayer right away, how would you do it? Or would you have been satisfied with weeks of play, wait and wait and wait, play, etc..?

[Sam_Catchem]

I never thought multiplayer turn-based games worked well. They took long. Don't you just wait each others turns out? The game is long enough. Some people love it..to each their own. I tried the original Civ multiplayer..and could get much beyond the first city..turns took too long for me.

I guess that is how it is done. There something called hot seat playing..but I am not sure how that works. You could play by email too.

[narmox]

I rarely play multiplayer.. I just asked this because too many people complain about the lack of multiplayer, and I'm curious to see if it would work with how the game is currently..

Hotseat's just the same... Tried one CTP hotseat game and it was just too long. PBM would be even longer...

[Readylander]

I was wondering the other day about how civ assignments would be done in MP when I was looking at one of the "What is your favorite civ" polls. There were about 2 or 3 civs that clearly were favored.
If the players got the opportunity to choose civs I am sure there would be conflicts and how would it be decided who got their favored civ? And would players drop out if they didn't get their favored civ? The same with if the civs are assigned randomly, would some players just drop out right away if they got a civ they didn't like?
Personally I favor the Persians but I am trying to play different civs just to get a different pespective on the game.

[Sam_Catchem]

I don't get it either. The only multiplayer I find fun is RTS games..but hey..people like playing civ against each other..keeps them off the street.

[dannyevilcat]

Doesn't anyone here play chess? Talk about turns taking an eternity!
If you want games to move a bit quicker in multiplayer, just set a few groundrules... turn time limits, must automate workers, etc. I find if you leave the micromanagement to the computer it doesn't screw up TOO badly, and leaves only the matters of diplomacy, trade and war for you to worry about-- the fun stuff anyway.

[Akka]

Originally posted by dannyevilcat
Doesn't anyone here play chess? Talk about turns taking an eternity!
If you want games to move a bit quicker in multiplayer, just set a few groundrules... turn time limits, must automate workers, etc. I find if you leave the micromanagement to the computer it doesn't screw up TOO badly, and leaves only the matters of diplomacy, trade and war for you to worry about-- the fun stuff anyway.

Well, chess do not take forever provided you play with the clock.
7-8 mn each player, it seems very short but in fact you can take quite your time.

[dannyevilcat]

Exactly. If you timed your Civ turns, multiplayer games would flow, and everyone would know how long they would have to wait before it's their turn again.

Personally I would really like multiplayer because I love machiavellian political intrigues and power politics not possible vs. AI, and so I would be willing to wait for an incredibly long time for my next turn (as long as I can chat with other players during the wait.)

[RouTaran]

automating settlers in Civ2 was not an acceptable option, the AI didnt know what to do with them so you usually ended up moving 50 settlers that takes 10 mins. Multiplayer games were very slow but the good thing was i played exclusively with friends who had a cable connecting and lots of time on the weekends
We still had to put time limits on the games but this gave rize to another problem, SYNC ERRORS!
hopefully, Firaxis will have some really innovative ideas to get around that problem and the general slowness of these kinds complicated TBS games.

[narmox]

Chess games surely have much less turns than a civ game.

Once you made your decision, moves don't take an eternity. Try found a new city in civ3 in the late industrial age, or capturing..

Chess has 32 pieces. In civ, you can have tens or hundreds of "pieces". So saying "chess can do it, civ3 multiplayer is a piece of cake" isn't a great comparison...

No, I'm seriously interested.. How could multiplayer be possible? It's stumped Firaxis enough to not release it now (or at least claim to not be able to release it...), so I'm just curious at the ideas people have.

Time limits probably aren't acceptable either - refer above about founding or capturing cities, etc...

[dannyevilcat]

Sorry to beat this everyone, Not trying to be obstinate, but in chess it's the contemplation that takes time, right? I don't like rushing my opponent, because when I play, I want to win or lose to superior/inferior logic, etc. not against who thinks better faster (although this is also fun.)

In Civ I don't spend an ice age contemplating my exact moves. I come up with a basic strategy or tactic, then run with it. Unlike chess, one wrong move in Civ isn't going to put your king in check. You'd have to be stupid (no offense to any one who fits the description) to have lost everything in one turn. So it's less important, and more laidback and fun (again, my opinion).

(I just don't think that because chess games are confined by amounts of pieces, squares on the board, or moves allowed, that chess is less complex than Civ.
I'll drop the subject now, adding only that as long as you are patient, multi-player'd rock. It will never be as popular as RTS.

And, yes, late in the game turns are ***painfully*** long...

[cutiestar]

I have never played a multiplayer game before, but i am glad this topic came up, because I am soo interested for people who played CIV II multi player to explain how it is possible.

I am thinking maybe for a game 500 turns, rough guess there. and say including late game decisions, maybe allow 5 minutes per turn on average.

500 turns * 5 minutes * 3 people = 7500 mins 8 hrs /day= 937 days

wow that is a very long game for more than one person to coordinate. Obviously it doesn't work this way, can anybody please explain???

[cutiestar]

ok make that 1 min per game, still 187 days, hmmn

[cutiestar]

ohhhh I am just crazy, sorry guys, forget you saw those last two messages, i wish i knew how to edit them now.

ok 500 turns*5 mins/turn*3players= 125 hours for a game, still a lot though

[dogen]

I don't understand why some people like to play multiplayer. I never have that much free time.

[Rymiss]

I can remember playing Civ2 multiplayer with one of my friends over a LAN network and we played with about 3 AI. We didnt have a time limit on our moves and it flowed pretty well, all in all it was pretty fun but when it does get later in the game it can take a while to wait for your human opponant to move. I think we made up to 1000AD or so in 3 hours. Pretty long now that i think about it actually.

[Faray357]

Well I remeber when a few of my friends and I would play Call to power. It was a total of four of us and we played on the second samllest map with a time limit based on your number of cities (30 seconds per city). This worked well but we usually had games that lasted about a few hours, depending on if decided to attack, or build up peacefully. In order for it to work, it would have to have few people and on a small map, unless Fraxis works out something better.

[Ulthien]

There is one simple way to solve it, but I haven't seen it on any civ type game, but on an early, text-based space battle game on Commodore Pet somewhere in 1977 or so (think it was called Orion or similar):

°Players all play their turns SIMULTANEOUSLY, stopping with an unit in the instant its ordered to attack something.

°Everyone waits for last player 5 mins, then the resolution phase is on (this solves Link dead other players, etc).

°Battle turn: all the battles and movements get resolved now, eventualy determining the movement of different units randomly (i.e. it is not always same player that moves first, he would have enorm advantage of planning on static universe). The units in war, if passing over same field would battle on the spot, being intercepted.

°on battle resolution, players go to their common planning turn together.

VOILA: fast play for all, dramatic, and taking care of LD players (they only defend). Changes the game I guess A LOT, is still fun...

cheers

[Rymiss]

Defiantly a good idea but would it work with Civ 3 ?
Cuz Civ3 has alot more depth and detail.