Massively Multiplayer CIV3

[airdrik]

I don't like the idea of one turn/day because that implies that the collaboration between players will take at least 24/civs hours to figure out what they are going to do. The more civs you have the more realistic it would be, but who says that there are going to be that many civs in one multiplayer game? Unless you are saying that the most time that all the civs can take is 1 day.
They could just limit the number of civs down to 16 at max, then with 5 players/civ thats 80 players which I think is a lot of people to be playing one internet multiplayer game at one time, and who says that they are going to be playing the same game? (see my prev. post about having more than one game) So at a given time, there will be 25-30 players at one game, about 2/civ. only a little negotiation will be needed to decide what they are going to do that turn(even less in the earlier parts of the game before you meet up with anyone) which means that one civ's turn wouldn't take much longer than a few minutes. Times 16 civs resutls in one turn takes no longer than 1 hour (it might approach that eventualy, but by that time you should almost be done with that game). A limit to each civ would be 30-45 minutes per turn, after which it automatically switches to the next civ. But that's still 12 hours if every civ takes 45 minutes to decide what they are going to do.

[UltraSonix]

How about a totally different angle to this idea - it'll never be implemented simply because there'll never enough interested players to make it commercially viable.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 11-16-2000 12:12 PM I don't like the idea of one turn/day because that implies that the collaboration between players will take at least 24/civs hours to figure out what they are going to do. The more civs you have the more realistic it would be, but who says that there are going to be that many civs in one multiplayer game? Unless you are saying that the most time that all the civs can take is 1 day.

Yeah, thats what I am saying. A nation has one day to get its act together, before the turn is up. This doesn't mean that it will take a day for everything to be setup, just thats the time alloted.

Why this is good. Its good if, say, you want to play a multiplayer civ, but do not have a long stretch of evening to do so. Everyone has different schedules, and your really busy, its nice to be able to set aside a few minutes to do a turn. Would be nice to include a message board, members specific to each nation, so that the nation's leader can issue orders and what not to the members if need be, also
[This message has been edited by beyowulf (edited November 17, 2000).]

[jdlessl]

The more I think about this, the more I think it's actually doable. The only problem I keep running into is how to implement combat in a realistic fashion. Bear in mind that a map is going to be much larger than normal, and I think it would work better if military units were cheaper and more plentiful and had realistic limits as to what they can and cannot do. For instance, a single militia unit with 90% damage cannot conquer a city of 2 million people, especially with the opposing city's mayor fighting you tooth and nail. Have the units represent real quantities of troops that a commander can organize however he sees fit (ie, two half-strength regiments can be combined into a full-strength one).

Anyway, does someone have ideas as to how combat could be implemented?

Also, this sort of thing is rather different from Civ in that all the players are taking their turns at the same time. IIRC, there was an option to do that in SMAC, though I never actually used it. Can anyone tell me how well those games worked?

--
Jared Lessl

[airdrik]

If everything is done simultaniously then if you moved a unit where another player can see it then that player would see it move on his screen at that time. He could also attack it that turn if he wanted to and had a unit in range to fight that unit.
Everyone would end their turns when they feel they are done, and when everyone is done then the next turn begins.

If one player attacks a city then the player being attacked could bring in nearby units to counter attack the units attacking the city. If you attack a unit that is in combat with another unit then you supprise attack that unit and get one free hit in. That unit then stops fighting the unit he was fighting to defend against your attack. If he was defending against another unit then the previous unit still gets to attack it. The sandwitched unit would only be allowed one conterattack per combat round. If the sandwitched unit was the attacker when it was attacked then the defender could (if it still has moves left) turn around and attack it's attacker if it's owner tells it to attack the unit that was attacking it.
This could result in a royal rumble if you arranged for everyone to get one or two units in there and just have a ball . Whoever wins would be very hurt, but such a battle would be soo much fun just to watch .

That is if it allows you to attack attacking units. They might not, though .

[airdrik]

How about we start a pole: how many people would be interested in playing Civ 3 over the internet against/with other humans? If enough people say yes, then it could/should be implemented, if not, then forget it.

I personally would like to play an internet version against/with other humans because playing against the AI gets old after a while.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited November 17, 2000).]

[SWPIGWANG The Second]

Well, All I can say is that without either simtanous turn/real time this idea is not going anywhere.

By the way the team idea is just GREAT.

[jdlessl]

Fun though it sounds, the SMAC synchronous game seems to favor whoever is quickest with the mouse. City management takes a backstage role behind unit movement. More like a real-time game there, which is something we don't want.

What if units are not moved during your turn but in between them? The commander tells a unit to head to location X and fortify as soon as it gets there. He also gives it orders on what to do if he runs into enemies on the way (attack, fall back, try to sneak past, etc). At the end of the turn, the server goes through and implements all the movements. It would have to do it a bit at a time for each civ; moves the units in small time segments so player #1 doesn't have an advantage.

This way, there's no advantage given to those who play in the first minutes of the new turn. It also allows you to have combined assaults with units attacking from different directions, something even CTP couldn't do.

--
Jared Lessl

[airdrik]

This is a good idea, but not only would the prev. mentioned ideas give advantages to the faster, it would give advantages to those who wait just beyond the reach of everyone else until someone comes into their range at which time, he could strike.

This idea adds more realism, so to speak, because if you have two units that each have 3 movement points then they would move one space at the same time times their three movement points. You could have it so that a unit might move one, wait one, then move one. Thus if someone uses all it's movement points to get to where you are headed, you don't get caught defending, but offending.

[jdlessl]

Given the choice, I would much prefer to be on the defensive (usually; it depends on what kind of battle I'm fighting), so that sort of scenario is not something I'd try to set up on purpose. We just have to make sure that being on the defensive actually incurs a bonus. Easily done: make sure it's using a slightly more realistic combat simulator that pits the weapons against each other, and not purely against a defensive armor value. I believe I've heard more than a little complaint about the utter unrealism of combat resolution in Civ & SMAC.

--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited November 19, 2000).]

[Adm.Naismith]

Hmm, just in case there are lazy people around here...

This the abstract from the link I wrote in my previus post: I hope it explain quite well what some of us mean by simultaneous turn.

It's not a "click fest" at all, but simply asynchronous turns where orders are issued using one or more "client module" and are resolved by a "server module". They can work on the same PC (single player and hot seat) as well on different hardware (multiplayer).

quote: by Adm.Naismith (aka mcostant) and ChrisShaffer EC3 New Idea #15: Simultaneous Turns of Play The Problem The current turn-based model uses an unrealistic sequence, where a player can move units, attack a defender, and repeat. The defender can't properly react (reinforce, counterattack, etc.). All war declarations have a "Pearl Harbor" feeling, with significant advantages for attackers. Multiplayer is too difficult. Abstract All players (human and AI) receive a turn report, which can be reviewed and replayed as desired. All players create a set of potential orders for units, cities, and diplomacy. All players submit orders. All orders are adjudicated (on schedule or when all players have submitted orders). Conflicting orders are decided using a rule-based priority system. Game generates turn reports. Repeat. Advantages More realistic combat model. Forces players to consider both offence and defence. Eliminates the problem of "rolling attacks" where the defender has little or no opportunity to react. First strike nuclear attacks more difficult. Practical multiplayer options. In direct-connect mode, simultaneous orders creation saves considerable time. Eliminates the lag problems inherent in PBEM, as games could be hosted on web or email servers with set turn schedules. Players could receive turn reports, create orders, and submit them to the server for the next adjudication. The AI could create orders for players who do not meet the deadline. Eliminates most opportunities for cheating in multiplayer. Increased realism and excitement. In the real world, everyone acts at the same time, they don't wait until their turn. More tension in the rush to achieve objectives such as wonder building. Needed to implement this proposal Development of a priority mechanism to settle conflicting orders, such as movement, resource allocation by competing cities, etc. Turn reports combining animation and text that allow detailed review of events. "Replay" of any portion of the turn report as desired by players. Options for reactive movement and combat. Multiple defensive and offensive postures for units. Method of determining whether a unit is attacking, defending, or both. For example, a unit could be ordered to "attack and hold," "charge," "attack and advance," "counterattack if attacked," and so forth. Conclusion Simultaneous turns of play is more like a strategic level of command, where you make decisions and orders about the general plan, and then things happen according to your overall plan before you (the main commander) can change your mind.

Ok, now we have a draft of the model. We must add the team playing ability to solve occasional player unavailability and raise the feeling of beeing part of a civilization.

Well, if Firaxis will put the programming effort and some game server site will host the hardware, I'll be happy to do my job, sharing the income!

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