Have you given up on multiplayer

[SirOsis]

I think you'll be able to do that once the pitboss server is out.

[Enigma_Nova]

You could arrange a time where the both of you are at your computer so you can send turns back and forth.

[kevin2zoo]

Hotseat is working fine now that the patch has fixed diplomacy.

[muflonex]

Human team-plays are quite nice actually. Should have seen those modern armors roaming through the "glowing continent" full of enemies until recently (recently-nuked)... or space race with other computer team in 1982... or my 27 pop London... sweet memories.

[Hengist]

I don't think a game like this, lends itself to multiplay. I love Civ-IV singleplayer, but there are many other types of games that I'd rather spend my time with when it comes to multiplayer.

I often view Multiplayer as a cheap excuse/alternative by developers ~(unless the title is specifically aimed at multiplay, like Guild Wars, BF2, etc) for not providing an immersive singleplayer experience. How many times do you buy a game that has a handfull of missions that can be completed in 10 hours? Then when sombody complains about the gameplay being to short, someone will say, "Now it's time to try multiplay, lot's of hours of gameplay there"....hmmm yeah right.

I also think that if developers didn't cater for the minority of multiplayers, then they could channel their resources/time into providing better AI. Then we wouldn't see the usual claims of poor AI, and again someone replying, "Now it's time to try multiplay, humans beat computer AI"... hmmm yeah right (again).

From what I've read here, all the speed changes that people were complaining about with version one, were apparently done to suit the minority multiplay crowd. Singleplayers are still the majority stake holders in the gaming world. I think it's time that developers aimed their releases at this majority, with multiplayer being an afterthought, if there is time and resources left.

Just my opinion. I respect the right of others to disagree with it, as I hope they will respect my right to voice my opinion.

[LordShiva]

Banana, because I haven't gotten around to playing multiplayer in the first place.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Aro
I tried mp a couple of times, but it never worked.

It's working now.

SP games, MP, PBEM... You name it. I play all!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Aro
SP games, MP, PBEM... You name it. I play all!

Aha! But I thought you only played epic-mode MP.

[Aro]

Yep, but just regular MP's. I do prefer marathon mode, PBEM game, huge map, 14 players... My plan is it last for two or three years...

[CreepyD]

I dont like the idea of simultaneous turns so havn't tried it yet.
I also dont play for very long each sitting, maybe an hour or so.
the other options like pbem seem too slow and the game would last too long.

I considered playing hotseat on my own tho, maybe play 2 players
anyone tried this? it work well?

I still play ut2004 for my multiplayer needs. nice quick action to rest the strategy part of the brain

[MikeH]

Have been playing some hotseat games with my girlfriend. For when we both want to play.

Mostly allied to save rows but the AI doesn't sulk when you "steal the hanging gardens".

[TheHateMale]

I find losing a Great Wonder is the best/only way to make money in the early game. The 500 I got from losing the Great Lighthouse in my current game allowed me to max science for ages.

[kevin2zoo]

Originally posted by MikeH
the AI doesn't sulk when you "steal the hanging gardens".

I got the cold shoulder from my wife for "stealing" the Statue of Liberty. Nice to see I'm not the only one this happens to.