Is Civ3 without mp is a "flawed" game?

[Han Wu Di]

Hello! I am new to this forum.IS the lack of MP a big loss of Civ III?Personally I believe multiplayer is the only factor that makes people keeps on playing games like Starcraft,AOE.
I enjoys with the Single Player but I strongly believe the lack of MP is really a big loss for Civ III.

 

[kcwong]

... because of missing game features and that the AI is flawed in some aspects:

* Split up tech tree and trade tech like crazy in 1.17f

* Diplomacy:
* Cannot ask other factions to cease war missing
* Cannot choose which MMP to honor
* AI has no sense of who is friend, who is foe
* AI's annoying behaviour - e.g. moving units into your border turn after turn, filling any available gaps, no matter how bad those locations are (e.g. all desert, no resource, AI has no Electricity), with cities
* AI's extremely greedy behaviour (while I have much larger military force and territory, AI trade me 1 fur and expect 1 Spice, 1 Gem, Steam Power, Industrialization, Electricity and 150 gold, nothing less will do)


*IF* (a big IF) MP is available, those problems will go away.
Or if they give us a patch that makes things right...


kcwong, who is still enjoying the game no matter what.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by kcwong
* Split up tech tree and trade tech like crazy in 1.17f

I trade like crazy.

* AI has no sense of who is friend, who is foe

Chamberlain was heralded as a hero for making a "peace in our time" agreement with Hitler.

AI's annoying behaviour - e.g. moving units into your border turn after turn, filling any available gaps, no matter how bad those locations are (e.g. all desert, no resource, AI has no Electricity), with cities

If it annoys your opponent, it's probably a good strategy.

* AI's extremely greedy behaviour (while I have much larger military force and territory, AI trade me 1 fur and expect 1 Spice, 1 Gem, Steam Power, Industrialization, Electricity and 150 gold, nothing less will do)

Sounds like a good deal for the AI to me. (Due to the size of your empire, the fur will help you much more than the gems and spices will help them. Plus they may not like or trust you.)

 

[Black Fluffy Lion]

no.

IMHO civ has always been a single player game. Sure, civ3 is missing something without MP but I'm glad Firaxis concentrated on the single player before multi player.

 

[Exile_Ian]

It's good to see that the consensus is that MP is not an essential part of Civ3 (so far anyway). As is often the case, those that demand Multiplayer tend to be fairly vocal and people could be forgiven for thinking its the biggest issue.

Personally, I don't feel that MP should be requested to overcome shortcomings of the AI - I have to hope that there will be continual improvement there anyway.

For me, games against 'real-people' are a completely different animal to ones against the computer and Civ3 is just one of those games that I don't think I'd be that interested in playing as MP.

 

[rangers85]

Thing is, people forget Civ2 didn't come with the original version either. How quickly people forget. Anyways, I'd rather see them only come out with single player since more than likely, I wouldn't play the multiplayer. Therefore, I'd end up paying extra for that capability that I'd never use. My thoughts are, let those that will use it pay for it, and keep the price and wait down for those of us that don't want it.

 

[D. Boon's Ghost]

Never having played Civ II or Alpha Centuri, how does multiplayer work in these type of games? Wouldn't the amount of time involved be so much greater than what we are already used to?
I have been trying to figure out how a multiplayer turn based game would operate. Sitting around with a group of friends playing something as simple as Risk can wind up taking several hours, with a game as complex as Civ III I can only imagine the length of the games.
Thanks.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I didn't vote either way. Civ III is a great single player game, and though it doesn't have MP at present, it will in the future. A permanent lack of multiplayer would be a loss, but the lack is only temporary!

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I trade like crazy.


Chamberlain was heralded as a hero for making a "peace in our time" agreement with Hitler.

If it annoys your opponent, it's probably a good strategy.



Sounds like a good deal for the AI to me. (Due to the size of your empire, the fur will help you much more than the gems and spices will help them. Plus they may not like or trust you.)

it never ceases to amaze me the excuses people come up with to apologize for the mistakes in this game. You don't think the AI tech trading under 1.17 is a problem? I find that hard to believe.

Chamberlin may have been heralded as a "hero" for a short period of time, but history remembers him as an enabler of Hitler's campaign. Way to pick out an extremely rare example to prove your point. Hmmm, I guess spearmen can indeed kill tanks.....

Just because something the AI does happens to annoy the player certainly does not mean it's a good strategy. The AI continually sending a settler toward a location in my territory while i block his movement for 100s of years is not the most efficient use of a potential city. It's annoying, but probably hurts the AI more than it hurts the player.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Without mulitplayer you are missing 50% of the potential fun. If you have never tried it you should. It only seems like multiplayer wouldn't be practical until you really try it. Players are way more interesing than computer foes that can't even tell what a fair trade. It is no use pretending they even are good at negotiating when you can hardly trade stuff in a semi normal trade. + Players like to ally sometimes and don't always betray you every second.

Conclusion: While civ games are great one player, they are even better multiplayer. (You can get the other player do some of the work of creating scenarios also- when the game has a real editor that is)

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by NY Hoya


it never ceases to amaze me the excuses people come up with to apologize for the mistakes in this game. You don't think the AI tech trading under 1.17 is a problem? I find that hard to believe.

Well his analogy may have been off the mark, but the response that the AI is right to charge you more for the luxury if it will help you more is correct in my opinion. Not a problem.

The 1.17f patch did introduce some tech trading between the AI's that I don't like as much as the old method. Just my taste though.

 

[NY Hoya]

Reichsmarshal, I've never played an MP TBS game before, and while I imagine it could be a lot of fun on a LAN, how do you see MP games for Civ3 working? I mean, it already takes me a couple of weeks per game, and that's playing for several hours each day. I'd guess that MP Civ3 games would take several months to complete, maybe even longer....

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


Well his analogy may have been off the mark, but the response that the AI is right to charge you more for the luxury if it will help you more is correct in my opinion. Not a problem.

The 1.17f patch did introduce some tech trading between the AI's that I don't like as much as the old method. Just my taste though.

I don't really have a big problem with the 1 lux for 2 lux + gold + tech trade demands. While certainly annoying, it does make sense. My problem with AI trading is that under 1.17, the AI propensity to trade techs to everyone and the subsequent tech devaluation leads to a much less fun game.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
Reichsmarshal, I've never played an MP TBS game before, and while I imagine it could be a lot of fun on a LAN, how do you see MP games for Civ3 working? I mean, it already takes me a couple of weeks per game, and that's playing for several hours each day. I'd guess that MP Civ3 games would take several months to complete, maybe even longer....

True! I was thinking about the time it takes to end turn in civ 2. It will be rediculous in civ 3, unless Firaxis can some speed it up. Good point.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal


True! I was thinking about the time it takes to end turn in civ 2. It will be rediculous in civ 3, unless Firaxis can some speed it up. Good point.

that's why i think Firaxis should devote all of their time and energy to finish off the SP game first. MP is probably a much bigger task than a lot of people think. I'm sure Firaxis will have to change certain aspects of the game to speed things up so that MP games will be possible

 

[escl]

Does anyone know when the mp expansion is coming out?

Last time i checked it was March 2002...

 

[Peteus]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
Reichsmarshal, I've never played an MP TBS game before, and while I imagine it could be a lot of fun on a LAN, how do you see MP games for Civ3 working? I mean, it already takes me a couple of weeks per game, and that's playing for several hours each day. I'd guess that MP Civ3 games would take several months to complete, maybe even longer....

I found Civ II MP a lot of fun. It kept me playing the game (hot seat and dial-up and home LAN) for years after SP had lost interest for me altogether.

And I don't find turns slow - probably because I'm content playing on Normal maps!

I can't wait for MP, and when it comes out I will start playing Civ III again. Until then, guess what I'm back too...good old Starcraft! MP only, because playing humans is sooo much better than any AI yet available.

Does that make Civ III "flawed"? Arguable, but I'd say yes, any SP-only game is less fun than it could be if it was MP. And fun is what it's all about! Bring on Warcraft III! A four month all-MP beta! Wheeeee!

 

[Selous]

well the unfortunate thing is that multiplayer with civ3 would be so flawed ... due to the way the game has been made from the ground up .... i actually think "they" have made a design concideration to not include multiplayer EVER .... much like more than 8 civs really ... multiplay when/IF it ever comes out will be a tack on and will be crap when it does come out

in this day and age to have this kind of design philosophy is a VERY bad idea .... oh well ... is firaxis funeral .. not mine .... i REALLY hate companys that think the consumers dont want to play such and such an aspect of a game ... like shogun with the full campain mode ... they didnt think anyone would want to play a multiplay campain .... us stupid consumers only have the paitence for battles ... like civ3 ... us stupid consumers couldnt possably want to play civ3 multiplay

 

[simwiz2]

"And I don't find turns slow - probably because I'm content playing on Normal maps!"


Same here, I play on normal maps with 8 civs, and I can even keep animations on with no problems in AI turn speed.

Civ2 MP was fun with the exception of the howie-blitzes and the lack of borders, although i tried to play it recently, and the interface was horrible now that i am used to civ3's. I think with civ3's better interface, features, etc MP is very possible. It would probably need a high speed connection though, and a fast computer.

Btw i voted Yes, I think mp would make civ3 alot more fun and is essential to keeping civ from fading away in a year or so.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Hello! I am new to this forum.IS the lack of MP a big loss of Civ III?Personally I believe multiplayer is the only factor that makes people keeps on playing games like Starcraft,AOE.

I haven't played Starcraft and AOE so I don't know how those MP work for them. Do they have the option to save the game so you can continue it later or if someone gets disconnected? I have tried a couple of other games on MP and I'm not impressed. Maybe because I only have a 56k modem. One strategy game I played at one site I would be lucky to see more than 3 people playing that particular game at one time. It would take awhile to get everyone connected then the game finally starts, 10 minutes later someone would get booted off the system and you have to start the game over or quit. I thought I heard somewhere only like 5% of the consumers actually ever play MP more than once. I may be wrong but most people who do play MP games are playing the action games. But in action games internet speed connection is EVERYTHING. And I will never play MP games where you pay for how long you play. I spent $40 on this game and that has been one of the best investments I have ever made.

The only way I can see civ3 MP working to any degree of success is if you played on tiny maps only. That way most games would be done in one sitting. There are alot of people who go to those game sites and just play against whoever is willing to play. They will probably never see that person again in order to continue a saved game.