Simultaneous Play for MP

[Alexander's Horse]

I should come clean here and say that I support simult primarily because it saves time. There is nothing worse than sitting for hours waiting for other players to take their turns. I'm prepared to at least try and put up with its weaknesses for the sake of a faster game.


------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[Guest]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-23-2001 09:44 PM</font>
I should come clean here and say that I support simult primarily because it saves time. There is nothing worse than sitting for hours waiting for other players to take their turns. I'm prepared to at least try and put up with its weaknesses for the sake of a faster game.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

It suits you AH because you don't attack humans
You play games involving AI so you can snaffle them up; then put up the defenders preparing for a human attack. SIMUL really suits you, especially as a cable host!

How have I been naughty? Please explain!
My rep is spotless and power supreme
Especially in Mosman....

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[Alexander's Horse]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by deity on 01-23-2001 10:45 PM</font>

It suits you AH because you don't attack humans


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

That's right - I'm not a warmonger. But I attack them if they attack me so, your point?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>

You play games involving AI so you can snaffle them up; then put up the defenders preparing for a human attack.


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

No, actually as you well know, we include ai civs so people can hotjoin games. They are a nuisance, I would rather play without them.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>

SIMUL really suits you, especially as a cable host!


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Er, I don't have cable I have a standard 56K modem.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>

How have I been naughty? Please explain!
My rep is spotless and power supreme
Especially in Mosman....


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Your forces are occuppying my territory around "Peaceful Horse". Your reputation is "spotless" only in your own mind




------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[Carolus Rex]

The good thing is getting well into AD in a couple of hours with 7 players, the bad thing is that fighting is unfair. Not so much because it favours the defender (speaking as one ), but because connection and lag play such an important role for the outcome.

The problem with fighting in simu games is nicely illustrated by my own preferences.

If I play at home, I hate it... (56 K modem)

If I play at my department, it's ok (T3, or 10 megabits/second I think).

Still, another conservative here. Civ should be played turnbased!

Carolus

[Alexander's Horse]

Actually I don't care which style we play - I just like to play


------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[War4ever]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-24-2001 05:28 PM</font>
Actually I don't care which style we play - I just like to play



<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Finally something we can agree on It must be the new year

------------------
Back from hell....i have nothing to lose

[Alexander's Horse]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by War4ever on 01-24-2001 08:01 PM</font>
Finally something we can agree on It must be the new year


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I wasn't aware that we had ever disagreed

But I squabble with so many




------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[Curumbor Elendil]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-23-2001 06:32 PM</font>
So what your saying is that if a city had a catapult they would just sit there greasing the wheels whilst the enemy landed troops right next to the city and then rolled up settlers who built a fort right under their nose and fortified it? Such landings were always contested in history if the defender had the troops and was half competent. Never happens in turn based.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Well, if the catapult is about 100 miles away, it probably would never get there in time. It at least needs to be in the general "region" of the fortress to be a factor (this year).

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
I think the only players this change inconveniences are those who prefer unrealistic pristine training ground manoeuvres to the reality of war which is confusion, mistakes, time pressures, fast decisions on incomplete information, real time harrassment of action and disasters. This is called "the fog of war" and makes simult far more realistic than turn based.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I do well in simultaneous, especially when I'm host.
>-) Eyes of Night quit because I was picking off his invaders so well. I also had a huge advantage in another duel, with Carnide. I don't think it was quite fair.



------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

[KenThur]

Dave V & Car.Rex say it best for moi` also.

As a hardcore, enjoy the game as it is fan + as quasi-perfectionist, i rejected it initially for the reasons cited above. Especially the parts about having an excellent dialup connection & yet some broadbander's cursor strokes get to the host & acted on 1st... while i'm pounding away furiuosly on my keyboard watching my unit(s) being whooped... & it happens on defense AND offense.

However:
I would really encourage players to use it up to when serious battles start.
It is so efficient time-wise because as soon as U finish YOUR city mgt. YOUR own computer will calc all your stuff & release U to start on your next turn's mgt... until such time as EVERYONE is finished with theirs & released.
Assuming unlimited or better yet, high limit, timer setting. Timer on IS better due to the drops & naps that DO occur.

(note: Dave... U do NOT have to rush your mgt & make those stupid haste-makes-waste kind of errors. Just don't release, anyone else that has finished their mgt for the turn U R still working on is gainfully occupied setting up for the next turn)

------------------
"Hm-m-m, doubt me you will?"