The unsophisticated clickfest that promotes a lack of strategy does not adhere to the ideals of the previous civilization games. Is there any chance the devs will see their folly, admit to it and fix the multiplayer game by removing or at the very least making available a turn based MP civ5 game similar to civ4. Or will the developers fail to realize their mistake and stubbornly attempt to "make it work", an impossible feat. Having players both move at the same time can never work if strategy instead of "ping/clickfest" is to be promoted.
Any chance they will change the MP to civ4 like?
- Thread starter Zeknichov
- Start date
CanuckSoldier
Emperor
Well we obviously come from different worlds of Civ4 MP, I have never once played Civ4 MP with sequential turns. Yes Simu turns has it's down sides, but I'd rather deal with clickfests than turn a 3 hour game into a 15 hour game 
CS
CS
Oh see I used to love playing civ with my friends all the time. We would get like 6 of us together and spend all day playing civ. I just tried it the other day and it's no fun, it's just frustrating. I took over my friends city because I attacked with my weakened longswordman before he had a chance to attack me. On the flip side I lost two LS because I didn't have a chance to switch them out from the front lines before I got attacked. The lack of sequential turns reduces any aspect of strategy in the game and turns it into a frustrating clickfest. At least that was pretty much all of our conclusions. We were just looking for some nostalgic fun but I guess maybe civ6 or maybe never or we would just have to go back to civ4.
CanuckSoldier
Emperor
I understand your thoughts, but in sequential turns you get to sit there and watch the other guys kill your units with nothing you can do at all about it. I'd rather take my chances with simu turns that I might lose a battle rather than sequential turns that I will always lose to the guy ahead of me in the turn order :-/
CS
CS
BrutalusMaximus
Warlord
Pittboss! I want Pittboss back!
dot80
Emperor
Well you wouldn't always lose to the guy ahead of you in the turn order because u would include the aspect that once your turn is complete he will get to move in your strategy. Like chess. Just because one guy goes first doesnt mean you always lose. It would just be like a normal game, just with really long load times.
But sequential turns would make multiplayer unbearable because it is already annoying to have to wait for others to finish their turns when turns happen simultaneously.
Exactly, if you know the turn order you can cater your strategy around it, I don't see how it is any different than playing against the AI.
I won't be home for a while but does the new hotseat feature work with internet/lan games so we can have separate turns?
I understand why people are adamant about "quick games" when your opponents are a bunch of people you don't know but I like to play with my friends and when we've played a few hours and want to take a break we simply save and continue at another time. What we don't like to do is feel frustrated losing because of simultaneous turns just because a few people want shorter games at the expense of strategy. I mean if you want shorter games just have a turn timer with separate turns and your problem is solved. That's what they do in chess.
dot80
Emperor
Well if ur just playing with friends privately than make up a unit turn order for urselves during war,
Similar threads
- Locked
