Isn't it more likely there will simply be a player order that will determine it? I.e. player 1, player 2, player 3, etc. So player 1 gets first pick, player 2 second pick, etc.
Well that's just my guess, I just have a hard time imagining they'll go to the length of coding some specific system for multiplayer only.
Isn't it more likely there will simply be a player order that will determine it? I.e. player 1, player 2, player 3, etc. So player 1 gets first pick, player 2 second pick, etc.
Well that's just my guess, I just have a hard time imagining they'll go to the length of coding some specific system for multiplayer only.
Easier is just to let them duplicate... If everyone wants to be Rome->Norman->France, that's fine... you can fight for control of the Colluseum, White Tower, and the Eiffel Tower. (just like you do other wonders)
(You just can't have everyone be Augustus)
Isn't it more likely there will simply be a player order that will determine it? I.e. player 1, player 2, player 3, etc. So player 1 gets first pick, player 2 second pick, etc.
Well that's just my guess, I just have a hard time imagining they'll go to the length of coding some specific system for multiplayer only.
I probably should have actually listened to the interview before wading in.
I have now listened, and I agree with you. Interesting decision, I hope the UI is good enough that it will be possible to make an informed choice and doesn't require you to make a guess based on what you remember. E.g., presumably they will still signal the historical and leader choices?
I assume there will be mods 2 days after publication that allow me to play Rome -> Rome -> Rome.
The problem is - I should obviously pay the modders to give me the game I want. And buy the game once those mods exist Which might be fast.
Btw., Ara History Untold is coming out next week and it has the classical 1 civ for the whole game. I dislike the regions a little, but maybe they are ok. Discarding the hex map is a big move, but I can't judge yet whether this works better or not.
My take is understand why they would take of the restrictions for MP but I hope they can be turned on. It seems like the restrictions would be helpful in picking a civ transition.
I hope they put some local player rules in the MP game, at least optionally. For example being limited to only one friend makes sense in MP but not SP.
I wouldn't be surprised if an option to turn on restrictions is introduced down the line.
I imagine the reasoning behind the free selection of progression is tied to two things:
1. A balancing of how difficult the prereqs are versus how easily they can be sabotaged by other players. Generally players are much better at the game than AI, and in many ways, even indirectly, could deprive opponents of achieving the prereqs. There may be so much likelihood of shutdown that the devs considered it an "unfun" restriction that needed to be removed.
1. The availability of restarts and save files. Single player mode is a lot more conducive to restarting or reverting to older saves if you make bad decisions or miss good ones. Obviously there are no takes-backsies in MP, and frankly I could see MP being extremely unfun for players who are forced into a crappy option for an entire third of the game.
If you can pick whoever you want and duplicates can exist this neatly side steps the whole issue of Picking Order
So I suspect this is how they will do it
It’s also a way to test for balance issues; if certain combos always win and the game quickly devolves into mirror matches it tells you who might need a nerf
The thing that will be enfuriating is if those balance changes also carry over into single player, which they usually do
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Which might be fast.
