Online Multiplayer combat is completely broken

[theNextCiv]

Simply put. Whoever loads first, wins. This is generally the host.

This an issue with 'real time combat', Who ever loads first simply makes all their attacks first before you can get a click in, leaving your army in tatters. (I like to call this 'load cheating')

The solution? In online multiplayer only, combat is reserved to an 'attack phase' at the end of everyone's turn. Attacks are assigned during the real-time turn phase and then made during the 'attack phase' with the following priorities.

- Cities attack first
- Ranged units attack second
- Melee Units attack third.

Why? because in real life a ranged warrior would certainly be firing before a melee attacker.

How to further define attack order? A players units will attack in the order defined by the user. As for global attack order, a simple system such as the one below will suffice.

Player attack order (assuming there are 5 players attacking)

-Player 1
-Player 2
-Player 3
-Player 4
-Player 5
-Player 5
-Player 4
-Player 3
-Player 2
-Player 1
- Etc...

 

[Metecury]

you do know you can have non simultaneous turns? There is a mode where you have simultaneous turns unless you are at war in which case you go one after the other as to avoid that issue.
Of course one is gonna be first and the other second but being first is not necessarily always good.

 

[theNextCiv]

Almost every game online uses simultaneous turns. having everyone on individual turns makes the game even slower than it is (which is why most online games fail to begin with), But I also find having simultaneous turns suddenly go turn based wrecks the flow (as you would of taken advantage of the turns throughout the game).

Civ is a great game, but the online multiplayer is buggy and the combat needs a major re-work to keep it fast and fair

 

[anandus]

Almost every game online uses simultaneous turns. having everyone on individual turns makes the game even slower than it is (which is why most online games fail to begin with), But I also find having simultaneous turns suddenly go turn based wrecks the flow (as you would of taken advantage of the turns throughout the game).

Civ is a great game, but the online multiplayer is buggy and the combat needs a major re-work to keep it fast and fair

But you can't have your cake and eat it.
Either you choose simultaneous turns and get a clickfest, or you choose dynamic turns and have longer games when people need to wait their combat turn.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

Almost every game online uses simultaneous turns. having everyone on individual turns makes the game even slower than it is (which is why most online games fail to begin with), But I also find having simultaneous turns suddenly go turn based wrecks the flow (as you would of taken advantage of the turns throughout the game).

Civ is a great game, but the online multiplayer is buggy and the combat needs a major re-work to keep it fast and fair

Well, I fear your proposition will slow even more the flow, since instead of player taking their turn each after the other, your will have 4 sequence inside one turn. With one guy slow/afk, you will multiply the wait per 3 at least...

For more fair battles, the dynamic turn order is the best. Although it could be improved a little more, with possibility to prepare gestion (adding to the building queue, giving moves to non-combat/scouts, etc...) out of turn for faster play.

 

[lotrmith]

What's wrong with, in essence, going second? If you start your turn and let your opponent make all his moves first, you've more or less turned it into a turn-based war. There's opportunity here and there for a same-turn counter attack (ie you moved forward into range of other units) but the primary complaint at play here is merely your perception of being out-clicked when the practical effect is merely that your faster opponent takes his 'turn' first.

 

[theNextCiv]

Well, I fear your proposition will slow even more the flow, since instead of player taking their turn each after the other, your will have 4 sequence inside one turn. With one guy slow/afk, you will multiply the wait per 3 at least...

Not necessarily. Everyone would still take their turn normally, it would be as if everyone had quick animation on (since you wouldn't have to wait for the attack animation).

You could even break down the structure of the 'attack phase'
i.e
War 1
Player A
Player B
Player B
Player A
Pla...

War 2
Player C
Player D
Player E
Player E
Player D
Player C

Etc..

The game could easily do this quickly and simultaneously without wasting too much time

But yes my complaint is that the other player does go first when loading early in a simultaneous game. It's simply too easy to use a race like Mongolia or Nubia to use 3+ movement archers and zerg rapid fire your army before you have a chance to react. The simultaneos turn can be abused to simply wait out the opposing player until their turn is done the turn before, declare the war, do a heap of damage, then load cheat for a second round of shots before a reaction can be made

Think of my complaint not as 'someone attacked before me'.

Rather think of it as 'someone is abusing the system to attack twice before i can attack (or defend) once'

 

[lotrmith]

So your issue is the one turn where war is declared?

Play heads up, it's not that easy to mass forces and take a human opponent by surprise. You can literally check the army strength of any civ you've met.

You can also just declare war first, remain hostile all game because that's inevitably the default game state in multiplayer.

 

[theNextCiv]

Considering most games are decided pretty early in the game, yeah it is an issue.

Sure you can see an opponents strength, but when armies have a size of 10 - 12 units across everybody and they wipe out say 4 units in the first lot (really not that impossible), you're already down 8 - 12, or worse 6 - 10, with all likelyhood that some of those units are injured or out of position. Those horse archer races or nubia can simply pull back and use the movement bonuses to noob shoot the rest of your men.

It's super unfriendly to newer players, and i feel it is a big exploit, especially early game. Having a one turn advantage is only a 'small advantage' if the game is in it's later stages, which as we know almost never happens

 

[lotrmith]

Again why are you letting an opponent mass forces at your border and not preempting them? You've already lost.

 

[theNextCiv]

Who said they were on my border? Horsemen and bonus movement archers have 3+ movement, which means they can move twice or hide behind a hill before they reveal themself and have a 2 range shot

 

[lotrmith]

Do you live your life behind the fog of war?

Also Nubia is strong, a common ban in multiplayer along with Scythia and Gilga for that very reason. It has nothing to do with the multiplayer simultaneous turns.

 

[Tabarnak]

There is nothing wrong with sim. turns. It's a matter of experience. More you play more you find tricks to be quicker. Even if you aren't the host.

 

[gcampono]

Well, I also don't like the fact that one can attack multiple times before the other can react. It is simply an unfair game mechanic. But I don't like sequential turns as they are so slow !

My solution would be a very simple one: let any player attack only once each 2-3 seconds (it's only a matter of putting a little timer) so that each one can react and it would barely be noticeable.

 

[sonnybondss]

you do know you can have non simultaneous turns? There is a mode where you have simultaneous turns unless you are at war in which case you go one after the other as to avoid that issue.
Of course one is gonna be first and the other second but being first is not necessarily always good.

what mode is that? i hate these double moves all the time in MP. i loose war of that all the time

 

[Kurnn]

You have 2 choices:

1. Use simulatious turns. BUT, when players are at war, you decide WHO moves first. (Just like the other option for Multiplay)
This is best if you trust eachother. Because it saves tons of time once players are at war.
BUT, You have to EAT IT, that Player 1, makes all their moves first. Then player 2, etc. Unfair, sure....but this way there it doesnt matter who gets to move first.

2. Use the Multiplayer choice to make one player move ALL first, when players are at war. This works well, but the one who gets to move first, has a big advantage.
AND this takes tons of time! Player 1 who are at war must finish their turn, before Player 2 can start.

In my MP games, we agree who will move first when players war. And stick to that. ONLY war-related moves has to wait for other players. They can do everything else at the same time.
This saves TONS of time.