Looks like you can't play Mongolia in multi-player.

[Guardian_PL]

Hey, it was FREE, don't you get it? Free medical service is not the same as paid medical service - Firaxis simply don't care that they've just trampled feelings of many, many civfans who were in love with Mongolian civilization by utterly braking it (not that I'm one of them, but so many folks here were ecstatic that Mongolia will be available for Civ5).

So you've got multiplayer game without a hotseat, and a DLC that's not multiplayer compatible. Hilarious.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a comment like "you can't play Mongolia in multiplayer!" gets greeted with "well that's actually good because their UU is overpowered, so Firaxis is doing is us a favor!"

Now, I'm not a molotov-throwing, revolt-leading firebrand or anything, but how can anyone - apologist or not - defend that lack of functionality?

100% agree

Good job I've given up on Civ5 and didn't even start it to test the patch or this free DLC - had a great time though reading 3 years old thread about acidsatyr's succesion game - it was amazing, thanks uberfish for that.

 

[Flak Fox]

Anyone else notice the Khan's special ability to heal nearby units isn't working?

Well, at least not correctly--and it isn't displaying the HP heal marquee above any of my units either

 

[SorcerousSquash]

Why in God's name would they not implement 2 civilizations in MP. Steam specifically said Babylon was for MP that's why I bought it.





"Paper Working as Intended, Nerf Rock " - Posted by Scissors

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

They said simultaneous would be released right away, but other multiplayer modes would be released in patches. I never said better multiplayer, just that they are working on it. They also said they're working on ways so all DLC will be playable in multiplayer, possibly even playable against people who don't have the same DLC.

My somewhat guess: With the release of other multiplayer options (which I believe will happen, probably in the third patch), they'll allow some use of DLC in multiplayer. The cynical side of me will suggest that it'll require MP mirroring between the two sides to allow it in and they'll throw in a checkbox in the UI that lets you check "No DLC" to ensure compatibility with non-DLC games. My idealistic side hopes that they'll find a work-around. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility they could have all DLC content downloaded, but simply locked away and encrypted, so it can only be read in multiplayer games that need to read it. Whether they can do it or not remains to be seen.

So in other words the possibility of that ever happening is ... 0

 

[Louis XXIV]

Once again, if you want to be cynical based on nothing, sure, go for it. They promised mod tools released post-game release and they followed through there. I don't see any indication that they would just not follow through on this as well. But believe what you want.

 

[Daitanis]

I just don't understand why when they initially released Babylon or Mongolia they didn't code them for multi-player use. It literally takes half the fun out of playing these civs.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Anyone else notice the Khan's special ability to heal nearby units isn't working?

Well, at least not correctly--and it isn't displaying the HP heal marquee above any of my units either

it's working, it heals +2 my nearby horseman for a +3 total... Awesome combination with horse army... Now i can understand why not in multi

I took over 2 city of romans on Immortal level in only 5 turns... Unstoppable...

 

[BobDole]

I personally almost never play MP Civ so this doesn't bother me.....but they really need to get to work on it regardless. Unfortunately, reading over on the official forums, 2K Greg said "They're looking into it" but nothing else, which I think might mean "yeah we probably aren't gonna make it happen". Other companies have found a way to integrate DLC into multiplayer without segmenting the player base or just flat out not being able to implement it, so they better be doing their best to do the same thing.

This is one reason why I always prefer expansions to DLC; it's easier to implement everything and although you typically have to segement people when it comes to multiplayer (those who have the expansion/those who don't), you only have to do it once, maybe twice (although with Civ they always seem to throw in the first EP's features/civs into the second one anyway).

 

[user746383]

I suspect it's because the DLC civs are specifically designed to be OP so that they can sell more copies.

 

[Maxor127]

For all of the complaining everyone has been doing about Civ5, multiplayer is easily the most broken and neglected aspect of the game. And I also remember reading/watching interviews where Firaxis would say that they really focused on multiplayer for this game and how great Steam would be for multiplayer. I think multiplayer has actually gotten worse with the patches, though I haven't had a chance to play with the new patch, it doesn't sound like they fixed anything with it.

I don't think it's too much to ask for stable multiplayer, control over animation options, a diplomatic experience more along the lines of single player, and access to ALL civs. Civ4's multiplayer was excellent. Civ5's is a huge step backwards in every way. I can't think of a single good thing about it.

 

[SuperJay]

I don't think it's too much to ask for stable multiplayer, control over animation options, a diplomatic experience more along the lines of single player, and access to ALL civs. Civ4's multiplayer was excellent. Civ5's is a huge step backwards in every way. I can't think of a single good thing about it.

The weird thing is that they're definitely marketing it as a big feature. If you look at the Steam page for Civ5, it's the first or second feature mentioned - how much MP support Civ5 will have to play with people via LAN or online.

So I do hope they're fixing it, because they're advertising it as a main selling point of the game.

 

[Zechnophobe]

The weird thing is that they're definitely marketing it as a big feature. If you look at the Steam page for Civ5, it's the first or second feature mentioned - how much MP support Civ5 will have to play with people via LAN or online.

So I do hope they're fixing it, because they're advertising it as a main selling point of the game.

I completely agree. Integrating with Steam should make MP substantially easier. Firaxis, you're doing it wrong!

 

[zimmah]

Do you actually WANT to play against those Keshiks? Will probably be annoying as hell. Therefore mongolia would get dogpiled on early, so no fun playing as mongols either.

Any game that i know of that implemented steppe horsearchers in a even remotely realistic way ended up with them a PITA at least, and totally IMBA at worst. Just like in real life

reminds me of empire earth.

horse archers were pretty weak there, but fast, and the attack was quite ok. very handy to kill the enemies workers with, leaving them without any income, a few minutes later you'll be rich enough to totaly burn them down any way you like.

there's no counter either. anything that 'should be able to kill them' is much slower. and melee horses are usually more expensive (due to armor etc.) and also slightly slower and they lack the range, so even they can't keep up.

realistic? yes. Balanced? probably not.

but then again, the world is not balanced.

 

[Daitanis]

I'm hoping to get an update on this, but its looking pretty grim for both Mongolia and Babylon to ever be played multi-player.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think it's grim. They've released one patch so far. Maybe chances are slim for the near future, I can't blame anyone who feels that way. But, overall? I would be shocked if they don't do something to make them playable.

 

[Kaxeon]

I am not going to buy any additional civs unless they can be used in MP.