Please tell me about the online multiplayer experience.

[AveiMil]

Hello,

I’m curious as to how the game plays online.

- What are the most common settings used?
- How long does a game take on average?
- Are the majority of games purely war based?
- If you can elaborate on the above; how does games normally evolve compared to single player games?

I know this is a very general question so please feel free to elaborate on your specific experiences.

Thanks for reading,
AveiMil

 

[StefOfDk]

Hm... Hard questions to answer.

The most common used settings is perhaps the standard ones as you know them from normal games. However, disabling technology trading/brokering is an option a lot of people prefer.

Yes, the majority of online civ battles is about war, I guess. I have been in a few peacefull games, but then it is very often a cold war situation.

A game played on the fastest settings, including fastest development settings, and including 4-6 players, will probably take 8-10 hours to complete. However, most of the time there will be a time limit (in our leagues we mostly play 4½ hours, but on Civplayers they play 150 turns I think (have not tried it myself yet)).

Compared to playing with AI the human-against-human-games are much more fun. People are ether "dumber" or much cleverer than the AI which could be improved much. You never really know what the other players are up to. For instance, some people hide their troops in transports or galleys and then suddenly move out and take out your capital if it is pretty unprotected and by the sea.

Oh I almost forgot: The main difference from normal games are also that most multiplayer games are played with simultaneous turns, that is all move at the same time. This demands a lot if you have 10-15 cities. I like to play with maps that allows players a max of 4-5 cities since the turns are quicker and you do not have too much to take care of all the time. It makes it more intense.

 

[TeraHammer]

Civ4 vanilla multiplayer experience (in the internet lobby hosted by gamespy):

Most common settings used for FFA's (Free for all's):

5-7 people on small or standard
Often pangaea map
Quick speed
Ancient start
No barbs
No tech trading
Permanent alliances disabled (but no game ever reaches that in practise)
Turn timer on blazing
No time victory (but no game ever reaches that in practise)

Most common settings used for Teamers:

Inland sea map
3v3 4v4 or 5v5 people on respectivelly small//mediumsea standard//highsea and standard//lowsea
Quick speed
Ancient start
No barbs
Allways war
Turn timer on blazing
Conquest victory


Good games take about 2 to 3 hours.


Yes, war is much more important to focus on in online game. Humans will attack you, just because they can. In FFA's its important to make friends with who you can beat your strongest opponents. Some people despise teaming up like that, but I think diplomacy with other humans is part of the game. In teamers you are locked in teams in a constant war vs the other team, so thats pretty straightforward. Allthough it seems. In teamers you are usually required to be "known" to the elite players there. To them, hardly anything is more annoying than a "noob" in a team. It might be very hard to get into an expert teamer. There are also "noob teamers", but these games usually don't last very long due to various reasons (someone getting killed very quickly, no communication in the team, etc).


If you like quick turns and speed, war and human opponents, go play multiplayer.


There are some other ways of playing multiplayer, like pitboss, which goes a lot slower, but people usually are more faithful to the game they're in. read: less . .. .. .. .. .y and quitty

 

[da_Vinci]

Let me hijack this thread a bit ... my MP experience in exclusively in the "one turn a day" pitboss ... which plays like SP except the opponents are human. In particular, turns are essentially individual (even though setting is simultaneous turns) and there are rules against "double moves" (moving your army twice before the other moves once).

I am wondering how live MP differs ...

I imagine that the double move happens quite a lot, first in one direction, then in another.

How is simultaneous combat dealt with? If two stacks are adjacent, and each wants to attack first with his/her siege, and they both start attacking at the same time, how does the computer handle this? Does moving the stack as a whole to attack at once (rather than individual units) have an impact on this?

I guess my question is really "what is the right way to perform combat in live MP"?

dV

 

[GyroLeader]

Multiplayer with randoms people is very annoing. First thing that every leaves, usually people leave when you got one city from them. Multiplayer games are usually all about war, and i dont remember multiplayer game that i gone to modern age.

And multiplayer games takes foreever to play, even duel could take more that 4 hours. Small maps usually takes whole day to play.

And the simultaneous turns ruins the games, war sometimes is won by the player who is the quickest, not by tactic.

So, advice to play with friends or player who can continue playing later.

By the way, is there anyone how would want to start multiplayer game, what would be saved and continued later.?

 

[Indiansmoke]

As with everything in life not everyone likes everything. I personnaly love civ online multiplayer and playing a game with good players is certainly way more satisfying than beating the ai could ever be!

It is true that online play is infested with quiters, people who lose a city or a worker and quit the game...that ruins the experience and wastes your time really....so the only way to play satisfying games online is through the civplayers league or with friends.

There are however occassional online tournaments done by other sites, like the KAC cup (check this forum for details). This is a very good tournament, only problem is most of the players are really good and unless you are experiences you will not last long...

So my advice would be if you are competitive by nature, then try the civplayers league and then some tournaments maybe...if you enjoy a stressless relaxed game with the ai...stick to single player or play with friends...

 

[colonelmustard]

As with everything in life not everyone likes everything. I personnaly love civ online multiplayer and playing a game with good players is certainly way more satisfying than beating the ai could ever be!

It is true that online play is infested with quiters, people who lose a city or a worker and quit the game...that ruins the experience and wastes your time really....so the only way to play satisfying games online is through the civplayers league or with friends.

QFT. AI might not do the smartest thing every time, but it doesn't quit when you start to win either. Indiansmoke's advice is solid here IMO. Multiplayer is a great experience in that playing against other thinking players makes for great games, but take the time to find a group that is dedicated to finishing matches.

BTW, Indiansmoke once took 11 cities off me in the same game. That was a long one.

 

[Chinetter]

I love multiplayer, and play online all the time. It is true that too many people quit too soon, and that some regulars are annoyed by people taking over for the AI, and that plenty of people are real infants in the lobby (the 3.19 patch unfortunately broke the "ignore" option in Gamespy), and some other problems too. But MP gameplay is just so much more interesting and challenging than singleplayer that the latter just seems dull now.

The 3.19 patch was in general quite helpful, instances of games going "out of synch" have been greatly reduced.

Be aware that most MP regulars (myself included) will not even consider joining a game with a turn timer less than "blazing", or game speed less than "quick", or tech trading allowed. All other game settings are considered negotiable but not those three.

Also be aware that if you ever let the turn timer run all the way down without hitting "enter" during the first couple dozen turns, or more than once in a while after that, online regulars will quickly become impatient with you and will start evicting you from games they host. If you're at war in the game and hence have to take the full allowed time to enter your orders, by all means say so in the game chat so people won't start jumping on your case about being slow. Can't emphasize this issue enough.

A FFA game on a pangaea map will rarely take longer than a couple hours for the outcome to become obvious (i.e. all those remaining concede to whoever is dominating). But that's partly because those games tend to be played in a relatively crowded manner, i.e. 7 players on a small pang map with medium seas. Some folks like to host bigger, which means longer, mp games -- they'll usually say so in the game name (e.g. "Long FFA big map"). The most extreme form of this, which I personally no longer play because they take too damn long to get interesting, are FFA games on island maps where each player gets their own big island to build up on.

On a pangaea map it's largely warfare, but not just military: cultural warfare is quite relevant. My favorite mp FFA games are on the mixed land/sea map types, such as terra or archipelago, but it's crucial to remember that those map types are larger than pangaea. So a game on a small archipelago map will take a lot longer to resolve than one on a small pangaea map; hence I won't play in a game on a terra/archipelago/continents map set for "standard" unless I have several hours free.

 

[StefOfDk]

I love multiplayer, and play online all the time. It is true that too many people quit too soon, and that some regulars are annoyed by people taking over for the AI, and that plenty of people are real infants in the lobby (the 3.19 patch unfortunately broke the "ignore" option in Gamespy), and some other problems too. But MP gameplay is just so much more interesting and challenging than singleplayer that the latter just seems dull now.

The 3.19 patch was in general quite helpful, instances of games going "out of synch" have been greatly reduced.

Be aware that most MP regulars (myself included) will not even consider joining a game with a turn timer less than "blazing", or game speed less than "quick", or tech trading allowed. All other game settings are considered negotiable but not those three.

Also be aware that if you ever let the turn timer run all the way down without hitting "enter" during the first couple dozen turns, or more than once in a while after that, online regulars will quickly become impatient with you and will start evicting you from games they host. If you're at war in the game and hence have to take the full allowed time to enter your orders, by all means say so in the game chat so people won't start jumping on your case about being slow. Can't emphasize this issue enough.

A FFA game on a pangaea map will rarely take longer than a couple hours for the outcome to become obvious (i.e. all those remaining concede to whoever is dominating). But that's partly because those games tend to be played in a relatively crowded manner, i.e. 7 players on a small pang map with medium seas. Some folks like to host bigger, which means longer, mp games -- they'll usually say so in the game name (e.g. "Long FFA big map"). The most extreme form of this, which I personally no longer play because they take too damn long to get interesting, are FFA games on island maps where each player gets their own big island to build up on.

On a pangaea map it's largely warfare, but not just military: cultural warfare is quite relevant. My favorite mp FFA games are on the mixed land/sea map types, such as terra or archipelago, but it's crucial to remember that those map types are larger than pangaea. So a game on a small archipelago map will take a lot longer to resolve than one on a small pangaea map; hence I won't play in a game on a terra/archipelago/continents map set for "standard" unless I have several hours free.

Very useful information indeed! I was not aware there are different sizes of the individual maps? I have for a long time wondered why sometimes the map seems larger although the size are the same (e.g. standard).

I will take note of the "no technology trading/brokering"-thing because that is an issue I have had some discussions about. Some of the players in my league seem to like having the option to exchange technology - makes it more about diplomatic skills - while others hate it.

 

[da_Vinci]

How is simultaneous combat dealt with? If two stacks are adjacent, and each wants to attack first with his/her siege, and they both start attacking at the same time, how does the computer handle this? Does moving the stack as a whole to attack at once (rather than individual units) have an impact on this?

I guess my question is really "what is the right way to perform combat in live MP"?

dV

Lots of interesting discussion, but I am still interested in having someone who know address my question above.

dV

 

[Speaker]

Lots of interesting discussion, but I am still interested in having someone who know address my question above.

dV

Attacks are processed by the computer in the order in which they are received. If your stack is adjacent to an enemy stack, the player who hits first will be the attacker. You would be wise to turn on stack attack, group your units, and hit. If both players siege each other at the same time, but don't attack with any ground units, then both armies will be damaged.

 

[AveiMil]

For the computer’s point of view I doubt there's any chance it will interpret the attacks of occurring at the same time even if it seems like the attacks were initiated at the same moment. A millisecond should be enough to differentiate it.

That being said, I have not tested this and don’t actually know how it works in practice.

 

[StefOfDk]

I want to add that in addition to being the first to make your move in simultaneous play, your "luck" also relies on the speed of your CPU and probably other things.

I had a game yesterday where I had a stack I wanted to move away from an enemy army. I had set everything in on moving the stack so there was no delay from e.g. buildings, research etc. - I got my units as the first thing in the turn. I gave the order, but unfortunately the enemy was quicker.

Afterwards, the player told me he had a very fast computer - faster than most others - and that he usually won these battles by being able to be the first to move.

Kind of unfair, but I guess that is also part of the game - having the best hardware.

I have not tested it scientifically, though

 

[AveiMil]

It makes sense that faster hardware will be to your advantage. However, it's not impossible that it has something to do with who actually host the game as well. I don’t know if combat calculations are done on the host or on each individual client.

 

[StefOfDk]

It makes sense that faster hardware will be to your advantage. However, it's not impossible that it has something to do with who actually host the game as well. I don’t know if combat calculations are done on the host or on each individual client.

Well, in the mentioned attack/retreat, I was the one hosting the game. And I definitely did not have an advantage. However, most other times I got the initiative.

 

[da_Vinci]

Attacks are processed by the computer in the order in which they are received. If your stack is adjacent to an enemy stack, the player who hits first will be the attacker. You would be wise to turn on stack attack, group your units, and hit. If both players siege each other at the same time, but don't attack with any ground units, then both armies will be damaged.

I would assume that if two attack orders for adjacent stacks are given, then one will attack first, and the other one will conduct its atack next, after suffereing the damage from the initial attack by the enemy?

So the odds you though you had when you started, might not be the odds you have when the computer finally runs your attack?

dV

 

[Speaker]

I would assume that if two attack orders for adjacent stacks are given, then one will attack first, and the other one will conduct its atack next, after suffereing the damage from the initial attack by the enemy?

So the odds you though you had when you started, might not be the odds you have when the computer finally runs your attack?

dV

Correct. Really, this situation doesn't come up very often though, as the defender can move his units 2 or 3 tiles, while the attacker can only move 1 tile, so you don't end up with stacks next to each other. Much more common is the situation where two players are racing to attack/defend a certain tile at the start of the turn, and the faster player is determined by 1) Quick Twitch ability 2) Internet Connection Speed 3) CPU quality 4) Luck.

 

[da_Vinci]

Correct. Really, this situation doesn't come up very often though, as the defender can move his units 2 or 3 tiles, while the attacker can only move 1 tile, so you don't end up with stacks next to each other. Much more common is the situation where two players are racing to attack/defend a certain tile at the start of the turn, and the faster player is determined by 1) Quick Twitch ability 2) Internet Connection Speed 3) CPU quality 4) Luck.

Hmm ... I would have though that the potential for an invader to move adjacent to a stack of the defender, with the idea of beating him to the attack next turn, might be more common ...

Quick twitch in the neuromuscular sense?

dV

 

[pi-r8]

You'll get faster moves if you queue the attack the turn before, and then spam ctrl-A as soon as the turn begins. That seems to always go through faster than someone sending in mouse commands.

 

[colonelmustard]

I agree with many of the comments on determining factors for speed, but I don't think it's that big of an issue in MP, and I'll always bring more units over tailoring an attack to the possibility of being speedier than an opponent. I suppose it depends on how you fight, but I find it rare that these things come into play all that much.

I think Speaker has it - if you're racing to an empty city or forested hill or something, speed might be an issue, but for normal battling, it doesn't seem to be the determining factor to success. It can, but not as often as you might think.

If you're worried about being first, make sure you have pop-ups turned off and possibly the unit cycling feature. I'm not real effective without unit cycling, because I'm not used to it I suppose, so I use it. I don't think it's the determining factor to winning battles, but lots of players swear by it.