Originally posted by VoodooAce: Have you ever tried playing MP with civ2? I did, all the time. In fact, I'm pretty much done with civ3 until the release some form of MP.
Yep. And never got a game finished despite multiple starts.
Originally posted by VoodooAce: For one thing, as long as we're already waiting at the end of a game, MP won't be that much worse.
Waiting at the end of the "game"? Why would you wait at the end of the game?
I can only assume you meant 'turn'. I have never had to wait even a full 30 seconds for the computer to take its turn. If you are, you need a faster computer or to turn off some options in the preferences to get the wait down to a more reasonable time.
Originally posted by VoodooAce: You guys can play with yourselves all you want, but, as in sex, civ is better when you aren't doing it alone.
That's a matter of opinion. The Civs have always been designed first-and-foremost with the single-player experience in mind and multiplayer has been something of an afterthought (in contrast, sex is 'designed' first-and-foremost to be a multiplayer experience with the single-player experience (or as I like to call it, 'menage a un') reserved for when there aren't enough players for a full game).
Originally posted by VoodooAce: I see civ3 as a game optimal for MP...
That would be true only if the *only* requirement necessary to be considered "optimal for MP" is that humans would make better opponents than the AI but I am having a hard time thinking of a game that *wouldn't* be true for. Can you think of a game where having human oppenents wouldn't be more fun than playing against an AI? And even if you can, what about all those hundreds of thousands of game where it *would* be better? Every single one is "optimal for MP"?
No. The big downsides to multiplayer Civilization have always been two things: huge time commitment for a full game and sometimes you have a long wait until the next turn.
How many turns is a full game? 1000? More? However many it is, it takes loooong time to finish a game (if nothing else, relative to other games). And the games that tend to take longest are the close ones with a tough opponent (it doesn't take nearly as much thought when you are dominating) - and, as you point out, humans could be *MUCH* tougher than the AI.
One of the most common things you hear when trying to get a game of this type together is, "I don't have the time" or "It takes too much time.". People much prefer a commitment of an hour or two to 20 hours.
And the waiting for the next turn tries people's patience as well. Epecially when they have an extended stretch where they don't have much to do and have to wait nearly the full turn multiple times in a row. I think it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that there will a (optional?) time limit for turns but there still will be stretches where you don't have much to do and have to wait for everyone else.
Optimal, no. Doable and/or enjoyable? Possibly, but not for everyone's tastes.
Originally posted by VoodooAce: you actually prefer diplomacy with the AI?
Just because A is greater than B it is not logical to conclude that B is equal to zero.
That is, just because multiplayer is better (which is debatable) than single player it doesn't mean that the single player game isn't worth playing at all.
Originally posted by VoodooAce: You don't want MP, then don't buy it......
Oh, I desperately want it. I have wanted it since the first Civilization. But I also realize that it is a tough nut to crack. Civnet and the saved-game-passing solutions just didn't quite work well enough (IMHO).
But the two biggest problems have the potential to be overcome.
Long overall game times can be reduced with mutilplayer specific scenerios. Whether they would be as fun as a start-from-the-very-beginning-and-play-the-whole-timeline games remains to be seen.
Long turn times can be overcome in a couple of ways.
I have high hopes that there will a workable option for email play, but a game could take literally years to finish.
Simultaneous turns is also a viable option. By this I mean a paradigm similiar to that used by Reach For The Stars (or Spaceward Ho! or Stars or Master Of Orion or any of the other myriad variations): a host game receives all the turns and everyone's turns execute simultaneously.
It could dramatically change the 'flavor' of the game though - it depends on how they resolve it when two player's moves are in conflict (e.g., they both want to move a settler into the same square).
Regardless of whether a workable and/or fun multiplayer experience exists, I will always still occasionally make time for single player games. This game is going to be one of the few truly permanent fixtures on my hard drive for the single player experience alone (assuming they get the major problems with the game fixed).
