There can never be Civ3 MP

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by yin26
Face it. Civ3's days are numbered.

You speak truth. But perhaps that number is larger than you are anticipating.

The first of what may be at least a few patches is soon to arrive, and should fix the most glaring problems in CivIII.

MP and other XP features may/should/will be released several months from now- reviving even greater interest in the game.

Just don't know yet...

[faded glory]

No MP war? Are you kidding me? They said the same thing about CTP-Mplaying because it was sso easy to marshall production under Comunism and Fascism.



But we humans are oozing with Ego.

I will use this example


Without a doubt this represent's what MP will be and what MP will always be about.

[barefootbadass]

MP will be fine theoretically, I think. Resources are a concern, strategic resources will probably only be traded for excess strategic resources of similar importance. This will make early expansion and wars to gain territory that has potential resources very important, and for the people that stick with it, make the game far from any kind of cim city type game. People will also learn to 'hang tough' when resources are scarce. There are some key units to this that anyone can build like artillery and riflemen. Of course, many people will give up on MP the first time they have problems with resources in a game. But overall, I think it makes the game FAR more interesting. You can have situations where one weak civ pays off a more powerful one to spare them for a little longer(vassal states but with real people) for example.
Specially designed maps might be needed, I don't think 1 civ per island kind of thing would be good, but generally maps could be made to increase the playability. Maybe when MP approaches this site could have a team of 'volunteer mappers' to work on a library of maps that would work fairly well and be likely to give all civs a potshot at getting the necessary resources.

Of course now the 40 turn max on research is there so people can 'suck a little more' and there will be a slightly larger gap. I like the science system as it is, although, some of the industrial techs that give you nothing are rather annoying.

Civ 2 had many concerns about MP, turns taking too long, people giving up as soon as they start losing(which did happen, to the people that didn't have patience for it), but also revitalized the game by forcing those that stuck with it to devise new strategies. One thing that I don't see how can work with civ 3 is PBEM, since diplomacy requires more interaction now.

[rid102]

Those guys didn't look to me "oozing with ego" to me... they just looked like a bunch of unheathly-obsessed lunatics to me...

[Cookie Monster]

Re: Operational Art of War

Originally posted by Vympel
If you want to play the BEST wargame ever made, play the latest incarnation, Operational Art of War: Century of Warfare. You won't be disappointed. If you want to play a Civ type game, I recommend Civ 3; even though I have problems with the game I'm ADDICTED.

I have OPART COW edition and that game definately rocks!

I too like Civ3 and I've been playing civilization since 1996. Yes there are some problems with the current iteration but we must all learn to understand that civ3 is a completely different game from the other versions. It just takes a little getting used too. I am definately getting my money's worth out of the entertainment value of the game but that's just my opinion.

Anyway, one thing that bugged me about CTP, CTP2 multiplayer is that people would quit playing with you if they didn't like their start location or they were just plain losing. What fun is MP if all you have to play with are a bunch of losers who are expecting an AOE type game (i.e. quick quick quick) from a TBS game and quit at the first sign of trouble. Good for Firaxis for ignoring MP. Crybabies like that don't deserve MP if they only play for 5 mins and go on to the next game. I play even if I am losing because I just want the interaction with other human players instead of the AI. So what's the sense of MP if I log onto the server only to find that the majority of the games are locked and when I do get into a game everybody quits after 5-10 minutes of playing because they didn't get a fair starting location?

Civ3 as a SP game is entertaining and it's model or game system if you will was obviously designed for SP only. The core mechanics of this game obviates MP because it just wouldn't work. I wouldn't mind the challenge of playing against human players but I think there needs to be a "Civ3.5 MP Edition" of the game to be released. It would be designed in such a way that many of the issues I've read on this thread would be diluted or elimanted to make for an enjoyable MP experience.

Bottom line is this folks, happy gaming with Civ3 and pray that they keep putting out patches to truely make this the greatest game of all time!

[faded glory]

Re: Re: Operational Art of War

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich

Anyway, one thing that bugged me about CTP, CTP2 multiplayer is that people would quit playing with you if they didn't like their start location or they were just plain losing.

ACS has our own Internet league. Go to CTP-multiplaying forum and check out internet stats thread. Every saturday about 15 of us get together for big (long!)games

tho I understand your frustation with the quitters. I hate them too....i try to remember them so I can mute/never play them again.

As for CTP2. .MP didnt work so good there

No pbem either

[barefootbadass]

Also, about people having disadvantages for lack of resources, it may not be as bad as you think. Civ 2 had similar problems with random maps. Most MP games I played had one person really get a bad starting position that practically doomed them barring extenuating circumstances(like one player only having a small peninsula with jungle but he survives because his neighbor gets in a 3 front war or something).

[Heliodorus]

Still there is this "kvetching" about how bad Civ3 is, particularly with the well-expressed notion that Civ3 is punishes excellent play and rewards mediocre play.

If you share that notion that it is so, then I assert that you don't enjoy the challenge that this system offers. It is not despite this system that I enjoy Civ3, and look forward to MP, it is BECAUSE of it.

I suspect that some of the kvetchers aren't enjoying having to rethink preconceived notions of what Civ2 was (and what Civ3 was "supposed" to be in their minds).

I LOVE the new equality impositions. It's made the ancient era something you can actually fight wars in. It's reduced the mindless pursuit of ICS, and it's tethered all players so that imposing global domination BY TECHNOLOGY is more difficult.

The problem I think the kvetchers are having is that they aren't adjusting well to being forced into being MORTAL compared to the AI, and not being able to ignore the AI once a small research lead is completed.

Where one door closes, another door opens.... Civ3 has great diplomacy options IMHO. Moreover, the imposition of this curve of equality creates for MP scenarios some really great possibilities for diplomacy there, as well. Ever research railroad and realize you don't have coal? Happened to me, and in that instant I realized how great CIV3's potential is. I had to beg and borrow to get a coal supply. I had to end war with two powers and then suck up to another that had me trade embargoed because I couldn't invade across an ocean with any chance of success.... While I was on the matter, I traded railroad around to allies in hopes they would FIND a coal deposit and later develop it for trade with me. My entire aim for victory was changed, and I had to adapt to the opportunities at hand.

Look, most of you out there play with cookie-cutter strategies to victory (or did, in CTP2 et al). Now things are different. You'll have to be able to read the game you are playing, not exploit things that always work regardless of the specific map, nationality, etc. I for certain RELISH the idea. I'm going to have to learn how to play in 2nd, 3rd, 4th place.... And when I'm in first, I'm going to have to find ways to play against people who might in fact be better than me playing without the lead - ganging up on me or whatnot.

Civ3 is a great game. That's my post (how many more till I'm not a damn settler!)

[gaikokujin]

I'm afraid Yin is right on this: it is not difficult on Monarchy level for your reasonably developed civ with ~10 good core cities, no 'scientific' advantage, ranking only 3rd or 4th in the civ competition, to arrive at Industrialization in the mid 14th century. And that is _with_ the artificial 4 turn limit! With almost all the competition right up there with you, if not beyond you.

So, ironically, the artificial limit doesn't even disguise the fact that it takes little thought, case or attention to quickly move up the tech tree - at least to the thoughtful player.

Originally posted by yin26

Well, the first issue is one of having an apparently enforced limitation on the rate of reasearch. Thus, there is no advantage past a certain point to having massive research ability. This is an entirely unsatisfying limit on the game, one that seems imposed on the gamer for two unsatisfying reasons 1) to keep an otherwise weak computer opponent in the game and 2) to force the tech tree to spread across X amount of turns.

Those other issue as to 2 v 4 turns, it makes a HUGE difference! Over the course of the game, you'd be able to have an enormous tech advantage and, thereby, have much greater control over the tech trading the comp does and be able to capitalize on techs much sooner. Think about it.

10 techs at 4 / turn = 40 turns

10 techs at 2 / turn = 20 turns

Play that over the course of the entire game! In other words, the artificial limits (if that's really what's going on, but who can possible say with all the great info we get?) simply punish a good player and reward mediocrity.

[gaikokujin]

Originally posted by Barbotte

(other pointless insults snipped)

Who cares. Anybody with some kind of life dont play multiplayer. It`s just too long.

Sorry, could not resist.

I have much respect for anyone who can consistantly win against HUMAN players. You should too, or else what are you doing here? Get another hobby.