Multiplayer - won't it take intolerably long

[JeffNebraska]

How could any of us ever play multiplayer? Can you imagine how long a full game would take? Even with only three other humans, there could easily be a fifteen minute wait for turns at crucial spots in the game.

I can't imagine that it would be worth it, and I'm just wondering what those of you who are fired up about it are thinking.

 

[ReallyNiceGuy]

I guess you have never heard of PBEM(Play By E-Mail) or even hotseat.

 

[DangerMouse]

If JeffNebraska thinks waiting 15 minutes is a long time to wait for a turn, do you think he'll enjoy waiting a day or more for his turn?

MP Civ is not for the masses.

 

[Divis]

Correct me if I am wrong, but all these threads that talk of the games lasting for 15 min/turn and such, don't take into account you can turn off the animations. I don't know how much that would cut down on the time, but it seems to me it would be significant. Am I right?

 

[LaRo]

And what is hotseat.

Should have asked for an multiplayer mode and scenarios for X-Mas!

 

[Toni1]

In hotseat game multible players play from same computer in PBEM savefile is send to player in turn via email (correct? never even tought of trying).

I've played couple hotseat games with a friend in CIV II and game did not take longer than 2-3 days (we were playing smallest possible map). In large/huge maps it ofcource would probably take insanely long.

 

[FacelessMan-000]

what's PBEM(Play By E-Mail) or hotseat.

 

[DangerMouse]

There's undoubtedly many, many things that can be done to speed up the game, but it will still take hours and hours (20 mininum?) to complete all but the shortest games. Only those with more freetime than they know what to do with (aka students) will be able to complete games in a reasonable amount of time (under a month?).

I'm glad that Firaxis is making a MP version of this game, but I know I (like most) will never to able to enjoy it .

Only a minority (but a very vocal one) of people play the multiplayer version of any given game. Civ3 has the additional disadvantage of the amount of time it takes to complete a game. Popular MP games are usually playable in a much shorter amount of time (30 minutes or so for a game of Starcraft for example) or players are able to jump in and out easily (think of any first-person shooter).

People seem to forget that on messageboards, but then again the minority of people who play MP games are generally the same ones posting...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

i have a free internet connection at work. we are entiteled to roughly 10 min break / hour. Imagina a 6 human players game on large map. I`d be my turn about once an hour for 10 min - figure it out

 

[Psychlone]

We used to do similar things with games like Masters of Orion, Heroes, and other similar turn-based games. Sure, they took some time to complete (especially when the guy who had to micromanage every planet every turn played), but it's not so much as you might think.

It's not really much different to play multiplayer computer games than playing cards, just that one person's at the pc at a time, and the others are socializing.

 

[OneInTen]

The other option is simultaneous moves - which would mean no waiting between turns, as each player would be moving at the same time. Multiplayer would then actually be faster than playing the CPU (assuming a reasonable max time limit for turns being used in the game, and a reasonable connection to other players in the game).

 

[RLymburner]

Best turn-based game I've seen for multiplayer was Call to Power II which allowed simultaneous play. Even better was that in case of modem drops/packet loss/wife turning off computer, the game would sync up automatically when the connection resumed.

ALL MULTIPLAYER GAMES SHOULD HAVE THIS FUNCTIONALITY.

 

[History_Buff]

It could be possible to have a game drawn out over several weeks and still have it interesting. Sometimes my days last for weeks and I'm a student. This merely gives me more time to work out crafty strategies to ruin the AI's day. HA HA

 

[Peteus]

MP Civ II worked just fine, hot seat or via LAN. Sure, it's crazy to try to get a bunch of strangers to commit for a whole game - I played with a friend or two, and we were quite prepared to save and come back. And we never played a game through to victory - the winner is usually sorted out before the Industrial Age.

Best thing about Civ II LAN play was that you could do your city micromanagement, even make trades, etc. while someone else was actually moving units! Civ III would not work as a true simultaneous-move MP (because initiative is too important), but having the active person mostly moving units and attacking is great for speeding up the game.

 

[Cerryl]

If you can find 1-2 friends that play, are good, and won't wuss out of a game (So ideally, play them on your home LAN) then MP is close to priceless.

But, take Civ2 MPGE, it was IMPOSSIBLE for me to create a game with a total stranger and expect it to finish, it ain't a 5-15 minute game of mindless Starcraft.

 

[sirganjalot]

Could somebody possibly explain "hotseat" in a little more depth? Me and a buddy were trying to figure out how to play multiplayer on the same computer a while back and it seems problematic. Do you share your civilization (like in PBEM) or is there some other way of doing it that nobody told me about? I dread the idea of trying to find somebody to stick out a whole game when multiplayer comes out, so if there's some way to control 2 civs from one console, I gotta' know about it.

Please, share your knowledge.

 

[LaRo]

I never played hotseat but I'm pretty sure it's like the old board's game Risk but on computer: one player sit down in front of the computer, plays his turn (Others should not watch, they would know your strategies). When finish, that's player two, player three...
That's pretty cool because I drink beer, listen music and what else you want with friends.
But when yours friends live too far...

 

[Psychlone]

Right. Games like Masters of Orion were hotseat multiplayer. One person took their turn at a time, on the same computer. If another player was required, say for in-game diplomacy or a battle, then you'd call them back to the comp, they'd do their bit, then the player currently taking his turn would resume.

 

[sirganjalot]

The problem is you can't control more than one civilizaton. The other player would have to just cooperate with you. There'd be no fighting each other, and that would just ruin it for me. I wouldn't wanna' play a hotseat game and have to share the decision making of my glorious empire with the idiot that hangs out here all the time.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

sirganjalot: you got it upside down! hotseat is possible for MP where player 1 controles one civ, then hands of to player 2 who controls a different one, then 3 and so on.... that is you have a civ of your own - just like the normal game, but when you end turn your buddy uses the same PC to control his.....