Great_Scott said:
PTBS Simultaneous Turns or nothing... I say. I don't see any reason why one would prefer to play PBEM. I'm currently in a PBEM, typically moving slowly.. and it will be my last.
Corossol said:
So heihojin you may want to try PitBoss if you have a computer that can act as a server. I'm playing enough PBEMs as is but if this month's game #22 was a PitBoss I would join for sure.
I played a number of online Civ 3 games with Simultaneous Turns enabled, and I was not impressed. I understand why that mode was introduced; the majority of players do not have the time to devote to epic games of Civilization online, certainly not in the classical turn-based mode that had always been the norm. However, Simultaneous Turns always felt as a "RTS-wannabe" mode to me. Civ has always been designed as a turn-based game, and the only mode that captured the deeply analytical, grand strategic essence of the game for me was PBEM. That's why I jumped on PTW as soon as I learned that it offered PBEM.
I see Simultaneous Turn PTBS games as an even greater aberration. In such games, luck has the potential to play a much greater role in the results. How do you account for an unknown turn sequence in your strategy? Should I as a player be expected to plan for the possibility that my opponent may have the opportunity to move his units twice in succession? Should I be punished in the game for having out-of-game demands that do not permit me to jump online as soon as my turn becomes available? I am sure that Simulateous Turn PTBS fans will easily discount such objections, but that doesn't allay my concerns or those of other turn-based strategy purists.
Because I see reloads as a problem with PBEM that can be resolved with PTBS, I would like to see enough flexibility added to PTBS to allow it to become a viable alternative to PBEM. Just what flexibility it is currently lacking, of course, I don't yet know since I haven't had the opportunity to experiment with it.
Finally, there is the issue of support from the developers. Historically, Firaxis's support of multiplayer Civ in general (and PBEM in particular) has been utterly atrocious. I deeply, deeply distrust Firaxis; Civ is a great game
in spite of them, not necessarily because of them. As a well-known administrator of PBEM games, I have a commitment to my players to select platforms that are suitable and that facilitate effective administration. I don't like having to cancel a game thanks to shoddy development on Firaxis's part, as I have had to do once in the past and almost had to do several times before. Therefore, you can be sure that I will be extremely wary of offering PTBS games until I have made sure that it will fulfill all of my (and my players') needs.
heihojin