Massively Multiplayer CIV3

[Snapcase's Temporary DL]

I toyed with this idea for a while, and came to the conclusion that it probably would not work. Still, I'll put it across ya, and see if you can come up with a solution to how to work it...

Okay, lets assume that Civ3 has the facility to support enormous maps and 64+ players at the same time. Shouldn't it then be possible to construct a multiplayer game type that would allow players to come and go as they please?

My idea goes something like this: A server is set up that will host the game, onto which players log in via some sort of portal system. New players are given two choices: To just get a few settlers and simple units and be placed at a (fertile) point on the map furthest away from all existing players, or to take over the empire of a player leaving the game. Some sort of evening-out system is in place, so that weak, new empires have an advantadge over large, old ones; possibly they could have more turns (as the large empire's turns take longer anyway). The game would never actually end, no victory would be possible, only a score based on (a) how weak you were compared to the average when you joined, and (b) how strong you were compared to the average when you left.

The problem would, of course, be with the timeline, which would have to be infinate or cyclic....

[UltraSonix]

If there was to be a MMP-civ3 then it cannot be cyclic. There must be an end, else it would totally not work. But I think the biggest problem with this is that it'll be too hard to get the new civs to be competitive, even with the extra bonuses. And I think having extra turns most likely wouldn't work either.

DLDLDLDLDLDL!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Biddles]

Um, wouldn't you run out of techs too soon?


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Snapcase's Temporary DL]

I don't think anyone would have the patience to play a complete game in one sitting. Empires taken over would, of course, but, er, um... er, nothing.

[Adm.Naismith]

Massive multiplayer CIV can work IF:

1) simultaneous turn will be implemented (see
EC3 thread about it for detail);

2) the concept of player as single leader of Civ will be changed into team of players as cooperative leaders

For the latter I mean that a pool of player can subscribe as a team, every one taking care of one game aspect (as council): one for military, one for research, one for civil development and internal politics, one for trade and diplomacy, plus one "council president" for coordination of effort (define how to assign tax revenue, the government, etc.), and ready to act as a reserve.

Starting game every player will have assigned a role, then the related available command (you can't move troops if you are the research leader), plus some "chat like" tool for coordinated actions. Every turn any player in team has a defined timeslot to make order, elsewhere is role is taken for this turn by council president or any other player (by predefined priority or anything else can work).

This way, if a player leave the board, any newcomer can start with the help of the whole team; computer AI will have less decision (just minor civ/barbarians) and must not care to properly replace a human.

Game can speed up at least as fast as one/two turn a day, may be a lot more (it depends if lot of players living in different timezone must be taken in account, sometime we need to sleep ).

The concept of simultaneous turn will speeds up things a lot, the central server in charge of receive every list of order (kind of a saved list of order, very short file I suppose) can be very powerful and safe (no reload cheat possible, no loss of game data because of a crash ).

I'm sure it's absolutly too late for Civ3, but I'll love to see Firaxis developing a CIV3net for massive multiplay as I suggest: I bet it can become a success mostly as Ultima is (well, I'm not sure if we could sell any great developed Civ on e-Bay, as Ultima character are )

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Vitmore The Great]

I like the idea of Team Players. It would give the game a new demension in strategy. The best co-ordinated civ is more successful than the less co-ordinated ones, just like real life nations. It can also bring in civ rivalry between the different cabinet members for the Council President job. Perhaps under such a playing model a cabinet memeber would be able to lead revolts and form a Civ under his/her control, or usurp the established president. A key way for an enemy Civ to gain advantage over a another Civ is to somehow split the cabinet of another Civ. This doesn't have to be implemented in MMP Civ III, a regular MP game would be good enough.


Vitmore The Great

[beyowulf]

Hey anyone remember the game Hundred Years War? It could be like that. Each player is given one settler unit, and told to go 'out there'. Each player founds one city and takes care of it. But each city is made of a nation containing other players. One player might control one city(the capitol) and decide overall strategy, diplomacy, research and luxury allocation.

Whadya think?

[airdrik]

I agree with the idea of joining in with one settler and only controlling the actions of one city and the units supported by that city (if you wanted someone else to control a certain unit you just move it over to their city and have it be supported by that city).
When you leave, then that city would go under the rule of either the AI or another nearby player (your/their choice?)

They should have 4-5 games going on at the same time, all at different time periods. Then you could join in anywhen you wanted to or wait for the next game to start. When a game ends it goes off line for about a minute for prepairation of the new game and for players to log in as new civs. If two games end at about the same time then one will pause and wait for about 1/5-1/4 the average game time, after which it would come back up again.

Comments, suggestions?

[airdrik]

I don't think you would need to pay any money/month. All you would need is a copy of the game, and at the startup screen, you could have the choice to log into one of these multiplayer games.

[DarthVeda]

I don't feel like paying $10 a month to play ANY game. Thankyou very much.

[Adm.Naismith]

DarthVeda, none is asking money to you personally!

None is asking money from me for Ultima on-line, too: if I like it I will join it, if not who cares?

Its like pay-tv: I don't suscribed to it, but I have no problem if they exist, as long as I have other choices.

Massive multiplaying has pro and cons, but if properly executed (not much bandwidth required, not need for h24 presence on the net ) can be nice.

I still prefer the single player, because I like to play CIV2 /SMAC during my commute by train, not easy to be on-line meantime

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 11-09-2000 11:45 AM I agree with the idea of joining in with one settler and only controlling the actions of one city and the units supported by that city (if you wanted someone else to control a certain unit you just move it over to their city and have it be supported by that city). When you leave, then that city would go under the rule of either the AI or another nearby player (your/their choice?) They should have 4-5 games going on at the same time, all at different time periods. Then you could join in anywhen you wanted to or wait for the next game to start. When a game ends it goes off line for about a minute for prepairation of the new game and for players to log in as new civs. If two games end at about the same time then one will pause and wait for about 1/5-1/4 the average game time, after which it would come back up again. Comments, suggestions?

Well I was thinking of something maybe a little slower, in the sort of a 1 turn/day lines. So, different people coming in at different times, would have a chance to play the same game. Also, there'd be more chance for stratedgy as player have a longer time to talk to each other.

[jdlessl]

I don't think you can use the normal Civ interface for a massively multiplayer Civ game. You'd have to use combinations of Civ and other types of games.

Here's my proposal:

Each civ is composed of many players, each with different responsibilities and abilities. You have one or maybe a couple of players who are actually in charge of the civ (President/Emporer, etc and his chief advisors) and run the game with an interface very similar to the one we're used to. They give out the orders, assign resources to the underlings, conduct international negotiations, allow trade and so forth, etc. Top level players can also decide how much interaction they will allow between their minions. Too little and the civ is inefficient: Mayor of Moscow needs a farm over here, so he has to route the request through a bureaucracy of sorts. Too much and he risks the underlings ganging together and ousting him.

Others players in a civ are put in charge of a city. Their game is closer to SimCity/Caesar and actual city design comes into play here. Commands to build this or that are handed down from on high and the human player decides how best to implement it. If a mayor is not living up to expectations, TPTB can sack him.

Other players can become generals or admirals and are given the task of managing an army or a navy. Combat can thus be taken down to a detailed tactical level as both the players are human (or executing one player's contingency orders if he's not online right now). Combat would be more like The Operational Art of War than Civ.

Furthermore, you can implement comm lag for earlier ages. You tell a commander what to do and he goes off and does it. You have no control over his actions (unless you tag along) and must wait for him to report to you. Any messages you send to him will depend on your relative locations. Same goes for cities far away from the capital. Installing telegraphs and heliographs becomes a top priority.

A really nice one would be a terraforming manager. Cuts back on the micromanagement to a massive degree.

Other jobs for players: spy/assassin, researcher, trader, CEO of a large corporation? It depends on how detailed a level you want the civ to go to. If anyone can think of how a player would perform these roles, please do so! (Machiavelli:The Prince for trader, maybe?)

You could even swap out the rulers with elections by the civ's 'citizens'. Rulers also have to worry about coups (bunch of the military players get together and take decisive action), rebellions (a city's controller gets a better offer from a nearby civ), civil wars (a change in goverment is not supported by some of the cities). Thus a mayor/general/admiral isn't _totally_ bound to the whims of the ruler, but knows he'd better have a good reason for disobeying commands. The reverse is also true for the rulers: if he is ousted in an election and chooses to stay, he'd better hope he has the support of the army.

You could even end up with the same inter-service rivalries with different branches of the military competing for funds and units, which are given or taken away by the head honcho. ie, Admiral Smith's assault aircraft are inferior to the Aztecs and need to be replaced, but General Bob's offensive against Denver has stalled since he has run out of Howitzers.

Keep the time/turn really low so tech doesn't tilt the game too quickly. Maybe a couple of years every day of play for the stone age and real time (or close to it) for the modern age. Also, put in a _very_ detailed tech tree with concurrent researching to spice things up (separate breech and muzzle loaded cannon/rifles, greek fire, proper horse collars, lots of little things that affect how all of the players will do their jobs).

The map would have to be extremely large as well. You want 100+ civs in the same map? This is the place for it.

--
Jared Lessl

[Adm.Naismith]

Because of the lenght of a common Civ game, we must consider that a Massive Multiplayer Civ must be able to run as asyncronous possible:
a team of player as detailed as jdlessl propose, will become a very big problem after a bunch of turn, because of syncronus players presence required to work properly.

Look at the difference between fragging someone in a Quake style (short) multiplay or keep your character alive and running in Ultima on-line for months.

We must think of a game model than can cope with these reality, and left out anything can't fit in (as good as it can be, because that's not the point).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[beyowulf]

I like idea of having a hug map with maybe a hundred or so civs.

What I am not sure I like is categorising the players too much. Maybe two types. A leader player, and a mayor player.

A leader player is responsible for the capital, and diplomacy, allocating overall resources, and military and civilian units supported by the capital.

Mayor units are responsible for their cities, and military and civillian units supported by the city they're controlling.

Players, if they feel that someone else is not pulling their own weight, will have some method of ousting them, either if the city their controlling is unhappy for a long time, or maybe by a majority vote.

Since the amount of collaboration between players will seriously slow things down, I suggest that unlike a normal game, only one turn take place per day, with a deadline at certain time, at which time the map is universally updated.