Civ 5 Multiplayer problems

[SeismoGraf]

Thanks for your answer CanuckSoldier. I'll certainly consider joining a Civ5 league for the community and other advantages. It is a bit early to know how the new MP will be and maybe ST is not as bad, as I imagine. You certainly have a lot more MP experience than me.

Just one sentence suprised me a bit. At first sight it seemed obvious, but after a bit of thought I am unsure, if it is true:

Originally Posted by CanuckSoldier

But good MP players never put themselves in a position were a bad single battle loses the game. [...]

First thing to come to my mind was the very early game, rush situations. When all the military you have is 3 or less units, one or two bad combat outcomes could be fatal. Either lose immediately or be crippled to a point, where winning becomes impossible. Probably in Civ5 this will be less of a concern, because cities have combat strength on their own.

How could losing a single unit turn the tides of battle in a decisive way? Carriers! A carrier can hold up to 3 aircraft and battles between two fleets composed of 1 fully loaded carrier should be very common.

Losing one carrier with 3 aircraft on board is a huge setback. Consider following scenario:

Two opposing fleets, player A and player B, each with one carrier plus escort. In this example the escort is 3 destroyers, but it could be 2 subs and a battleship or anything not too numerous.

In a SP game with player A to move, he would probably feel very confident. First, snipe the carrier with ranged or "melee" attacks of 2 or 3 destroyers. Then unleash the power of your airforce on the destroyers of player B. And last, the most important step, retreat the carrier, so the enemy can no longer attack and destroy it.

Player B will have lost 1 carrier, 3 aircraft and suffered 3 aerial attacks. Now he is fighting with at maximum 3 (damaged) units against 7 units. He should retreat or lose his entire fleet. Retreating may not be an option.

Above example is symmetric, so if it was player B's turn, he can do the same to player A. Ok, that was for Civ in SP mode, with consecutive turns.

Now comes my concern about MP with simultaneous turns. Lets say I've played for 2 hours, made it into the modern era and a new turn begins. For whatever reason I divert my attention from my navy for 5-10 seconds. In above image the two navies would not see each other, except via recon missions or the like.

For example, I fight a millisecond battle to retreat my 3 tanks I have under fire elsewhere, before the enemy can destroy them. Or I have promised an ally immediate help at the start of the turn on another front.

My enemy (player B) moves one of his destroyers and sees my carrier. He attacks the carrier with everything he has, destroys it and maybe retreats his own carrier. Player B will probably annihilate my whole navy.

Whether he used his destroyers in suboptimal way does not matter, as long as he sniped my carrier before I could react and has his own carrier safe before I can counterattack.

Losing one's whole fleet looks like a plausible reason for losing the game.

[bossconian]

Originally Posted by SeismoGraf

Losing one's whole fleet looks like a plausible reason for losing the game.

Yeah - multiplayer is full of people quiting by any reason e.g.

I failed to build stonehange - I quit
I failed to discover religion firs - I quit
I faied to take hut first - I quit
My land sucks - I quit
My neighbour is french - I quit
My gf wants sex - I quit


Regarding you example - that's the whole fun of multi - you need to anticipate such situtations and don't let you get into such troubles - for example send one ship /submarine couple hexes in front to do the recon task first etc etc.

Also there was some solution in CIV IV implemented which didn't work as well as it should but was a solution for such dilemas. The idea was to stop player who had huge advantage in attack - axe vs sperman - from moving his axe for first couple of seconds. Basicly you weren't able to select it becasue the focus was instantly moved onto another unit. Some people however knew how to bypass it.

In your example forces are in full symetry. In my opinion destroyes could be unselectable for first couple of seconds in which carriers could be moved away from trouble.

[SeismoGraf]

Originally Posted by bossconian

Regarding you example - that's the whole fun of multi - you need to anticipate such situtations and don't let you get into such troubles - for example send one ship /submarine couple hexes in front to do the recon task first etc etc.

Decimating a spread out navy 1 ship at a time doesn't sound like a bad idea either

Originally Posted by bossconian

Also there was some solution in CIV IV implemented which didn't work as well as it should but was a solution for such dilemas. The idea was to stop player who had huge advantage in attack - axe vs sperman - from moving his axe for first couple of seconds. Basicly you weren't able to select it becasue the focus was instantly moved onto another unit. Some people however knew how to bypass it.

That kind of things is exactly what I meant with having "the worst of both worlds". RTS-like rules, that no good RTS would ever implement.

[bossconian]

Originally Posted by SeismoGraf

That kind of things is exactly what I meant with having "the worst of both worlds". RTS-like rules, that no good RTS would ever implement.

To see your forces under attack and being unable to do anything about it is much less strategically approach to the game imho and much more frustrating. It's more or less as if one year only one army could attack and the second just defend nad the latter had to wait till next year to do somethng about it - e.g. send some forces to front and retreat weak units.

But don't worry - there will a be lovely single player mode where you could spend days watching great battle animations and wonder movies and nobody will attack you untill you end your turn. Btw - battle animation would be my first option to turn off.

Just to remind one big difference that makes the civ multi not any RTS at all - you have limited move points so you think first before you make a move. And you need to think bloody quick.

[CanuckSoldier]

Yes battles can have long term effects, but like in your example, if the player had a sentry net, he would have seen the enemy coming and been able to react to the situation long before it was a threat to his NAvy.

When I say good MP players use tactics that make individual battles not game changers, Sentry Nets be they land, sea or air, and critical parts of the MP tool box, to do that.

And if your being attacked by forces that you can't defend because they are an entire generation ahead of you, well you did something wrong in the game to be that far behind your opponents in tech. And you deserve to die

About the only exception to this is in the early game were players decide to take a risk and send their one warrior out to explore and hopefully kill some other player's empty capital, and do a first turn worker. This strategy can be a winner in that getting that early worker has a huge snowball effect and the possibility of knocking off one of your neighbours early has great benifits.

The risk though is that you are the guy killed by someones elses warrior with your empty cap producing a worker.....but it's all a calculated risk that alot of experienced MP players take, and when it works it works well, or you end up in a thread we have called "the warrior death wall of shame"

In Civ3 we did recognize that the double move was an issue to a point, and when we designed Civ4 we made the 8 sec move timer, so that units that moved in the previous 8 secs of the last turn could not move for the following 8 sec of the new turn.

Hopefully they will keep this in Civ5 as it is a good balance for the DM/FM being a reflex mechanic, but simu turns on general are not an issue to the competitive MP community.


CS

[SeismoGraf]

Originally Posted by bossconian

Just to remind one big difference that makes the civ multi not any RTS at all - you have limited move points so you think first before you make a move. And you need to think bloody quick.

Very differing opinions indeed. You write "so you think first before you make a move", but I fear "attack first, think later, if you can still move" will apply to ST.

Consider the most simple case: two opposing archers. Is it better to get the first strike or watch the arrows rain on your unit and later have the advantage to decide what to do with the now wounded archer?

Might as well bring him to the hospital at 100% HP. Btw wonder animations are no more.

[Cashew]

Originally Posted by CanuckSoldier

Yes battles can have long term effects, but like in your example, if the player had a sentry net, he would have seen the enemy coming and been able to react to the situation long before it was a threat to his NAvy.

Sentry nets will probably be less common in Civ 5 given the seemingly more constrained ability to build military units. But it shouldn't matter since I don't think a unit can get destroyed immediately unless you attack it with many units at once.

[CanuckSoldier]

Originally Posted by Cashew

Sentry nets will probably be less common in Civ 5 given the seemingly more constrained ability to build military units. But it shouldn't matter since I don't think a unit can get destroyed immediately unless you attack it with many units at once.

For sure military units are more valuable in Civ5. But with horse units having 4+ units, I would think sentries will still be important, even if it is just a well placed archer on a hill.

CS

[SeismoGraf]

Probably I should just accept, that multiplayer with ST (simultaneous turns) and CT (consecutive turns) are very different games. At least when it comes to battles. What are brilliant military tactics in CT, could be the worst blunder in ST, and vice versa.

Maybe I'll become a fan of ST and even wish a feature, allowing you to move several units simultaneously. It's called simultaneous turns, why not also simultaneous moves, after all? Then I could train moving one unit with my mouse and the other with the left hand on my keyboard. I'd fetch the racing pedals, so my feet aren't idle and do useful actions, too. It will feel almost like Starcraft. When an eye-tracking device comes to the market, I'd be the first buyer, so I can control a third unit simultaneously. All this will help greatly to counter the predominant MP ST "sentry-style" of play, by allowing me to focus attack and pick off sentries faster. At the start of each turn, my enemy will suffer from 3 attacks in the blink of an eye.

Forgive my blasphemy in regards to ST mode. I just can't get used to the idea of playing Civ like a robot.

[stealth_nsk]

I always played Civ multi on hotseat. And what I hear about simultaneous moves makes me don't like them at all.

I'd prefer Heroes V style where the moves are simultaneous before players have a chance to interact. And after that the game converts to consequent moves, so all the time you make your turns in the same way as standard consequent moves.

[SeismoGraf]

Originally Posted by stealth_nsk

I always played Civ multi on hotseat. And what I hear about simultaneous moves makes me don't like them at all.

I'd prefer Heroes V style where the moves are simultaneous before players have a chance to interact. And after that the game converts to consequent moves, so all the time you make your turns in the same way as standard consequent moves.

Not a bad concept at all. Although, I don't know Heroes V and how it works there.

Instead of switching to CT for all players, as soon as two players interact, the program could divide players into "non-interfering groups", which then take consecutive turns. With interference e.g. defined as "2 civs (*at war) with units in attack range".

(*By forcing players to declare war, 1 turn before they are allowed to attack, the system may work even more efficiently)

For example: on one continent there is "group A", Greece and France at war, on the other continent a conflict between "group B", India, China and America. Plus 3 isolated civs on islands. In CT mode you would need 8 rounds to finish a turn. So with normal CT expect games to last 8 times longer than ST.

Can we use a trick to make it look like CT without needing 8-fold time? Maybe; I haven't studied the problem in-depth.

Group B must take consecutive turns: India, China, America (or whatever ordering was set beforehand). But while India moves, Greece from group A can move simultaneously, without (militant) unit interaction with India. So can the 3 civs on islands. Then, on the second round, France (A) and China (B) can move in ST mode. Last, America makes its turn.

If this works, there would be an illusion of 8-player CT, but it took only 3-fold time. What do you think?

[ladedadedum]

afaik, the steam version lets you use their servers, so that's nice.

gamespy would suck though.

[stealth_nsk]

Originally Posted by SeismoGraf

If this works, there would be an illusion of 8-player CT, but it took only 3-fold time. What do you think?

Yes, I though about something like this, just tried to make it simplier. It should work.

[CanuckSoldier]

Originally Posted by SeismoGraf

Probably I should just accept, that multiplayer with ST (simultaneous turns) and CT (consecutive turns) are very different games. At least when it comes to battles. What are brilliant military tactics in CT, could be the worst blunder in ST, and vice versa.

Maybe I'll become a fan of ST and even wish a feature, allowing you to move several units simultaneously. It's called simultaneous turns, why not also simultaneous moves, after all? Then I could train moving one unit with my mouse and the other with the left hand on my keyboard. I'd fetch the racing pedals, so my feet aren't idle and do useful actions, too. It will feel almost like Starcraft. When an eye-tracking device comes to the market, I'd be the first buyer, so I can control a third unit simultaneously. All this will help greatly to counter the predominant MP ST "sentry-style" of play, by allowing me to focus attack and pick off sentries faster. At the start of each turn, my enemy will suffer from 3 attacks in the blink of an eye.

Forgive my blasphemy in regards to ST mode. I just can't get used to the idea of playing Civ like a robot.

Well no one is wrong here, if you can find a bunch of friends to play CT MP go right ahead and enjoy the game. But if you come to the lobby to try MP out don't expect to find to much love for CT MP :P

CS

[SeismoGraf]

Accidentally, I just stumbled upon a recent article via weplayciv.com, GameInformer Civ5 MP Review. The quote below is very relevant in regard to the title of this thread:

Another issue with playing cutthroat Civ V is that early all-in strategies are almost impossible to counter without going all in yourself. This is partially due to the relative shrinking of the world since unit movement speeds are so much higher than in previous Civilizations. I've generally been on the winning side of this situation (what can I say, I like conquest!), but it doesn't make for a very fulfilling strategy game when it's all decided on the Prisoner's Dilemma. Without playing Archipelago maps that forcibly segregate players across water from each other, the following set of situations plays out too often:

1. Player A rushes an early military strategy. Player B plays a typical early expansion game. A conquers B, giving A an enormous boost along the development curve.
2. Both Player A and Player B rush early warfare, resulting in a brutal war of attrition that leaves both nations weakened and behind their rivals.
3. Neither player rushes and they play nice together. At least until someone gets antsy and starts cranking out an army.

[CanuckSoldier]

Originally Posted by SeismoGraf

Accidentally, I just stumbled upon a recent article via weplayciv.com, GameInformer Civ5 MP Review. The quote below is very relevant in regard to the title of this thread:

Yes I've read that too, but I wouldn't take anything a mag reviewer says about competitive MP as gossple, they baring qualify as average SP players let alone experienced MP players.

I have one of the MP beta testers writing a MP review for release on the 21st, it'll be posted at CivPlayers and I'll cross post links into all the other fan sites.

At least then we will have a review from someone that has played Civ3 and Civ4 competitive MP for a decade now. And his ideas on the game play of Civ5 will be much more revealing that any of the pre release mag stories.

CS

[SeismoGraf]

Can't wait to hear what the pros say about multiplayer, be it ST or CT. It would be awesome to watch their games live!

[ddd123]

Originally Posted by SeismoGraf

Accidentally, I just stumbled upon a recent article via weplayciv.com, GameInformer Civ5 MP Review. The quote below is very relevant in regard to the title of this thread:

since there SHOULDNT be player c i dont see the problem

ofc like every other game of the world a early rush will be a favored but in civ defense should be way easier than in other games

and i agree that mp reviews count nothing

[Mithros]

What the heck are the ports that need to be open to Join/Host a game? All I keep getting is "Contacting Host" and "Retrieving Host Information" but it never does anything else. Please Help

[Chinetter]

Originally Posted by wapamingo

The only real challenge is in MP games, there is no challenge in playing solely against AI - a human will always win at the end simply because of what the poster I quoted said. If Civ 5 did not have MP, I would not purchase it.

Wholly agree on all counts. Haven't even considered buying any single-player-only games in...well several years now.

And Civ4 is a _great_ MP game.