TurnLess Multiplayer, implimentation.

[markusf]

Similtanous movement of Civ II, allowed all civs to move at the same time. If i where to do something similar for civ 3 i would allow all civs to move at the same time, and the second someone sneak attacks, i would revert to turn based mode for those two civs.

IF there are 7 players, and white player attacked green player, then green player couldn't move his units until the white player had finished moving his. Everyone else could move thier units at the same time. As soon as a peace treaty or cease fire is signed everyone would move at the same time again. Would this be better then having everyone move at the same time? (currently the host wins every battle because of speed)

[Jon Shafer]

That seems kind of... disorganized and complicated don't you think? I mean sure making it turnless will cut down on the time needed to play the game multiplayer (which is quite necassary), but that just seems a little odd, maybe it's just me.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Trip
That seems kind of... disorganized and complicated don't you think? I mean sure making it turnless will cut down on the time needed to play the game multiplayer (which is quite necassary), but that just seems a little odd, maybe it's just me.

Its just you... Its nearly fully implimented in civ2 Just has some "Issues"

[Skanky Burns]

I'm not seeing how that would work.

Would one player not involved in the war be able to move their units more than people in the war, as they would not be subject to turn limitations. Would some fast players be in the 1900s, while slower players would still be stuck in BC?

[whosurdaddy]

Could someone explain to me what is turnless multiplayer. I dont get it

[theEntity]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I'm not seeing how that would work.

Would one player not involved in the war be able to move their units more than people in the war, as they would not be subject to turn limitations. Would some fast players be in the 1900s, while slower players would still be stuck in BC?

Assuming "turnless" doesn't really mean turnless, but rather simultaneous, it will work something like this:

All civs make their moves at the same time, so if two opposing settlers are adjacent to the same destination square, the fastest player will get his settler first.

The're are still turns though, and as in CIV3 today, a unit can only move once per turn. There are (at least) two possibilities for when a turn ends: either when all civs have finished their turn, or when a time limit is out.

With the first option, all players wil have to wait each turn for the slowest player, but with the second option, the slowest player will probably not get around to moving all his units.

[DrFell]

Yeah it'd be nice to see something like this in the game - or maybe some way of equalizing the unit move lag for all the players. Civ2 sim just doesn't work as well as it could have (host gets 4 moves to everyone else's 1).

[player1]

Simultaniuos turns are good way to get quick NET MP.

But, you'll need good internet connection (at least as good as needed for Startcraft or some FPS) if you wanna play that way on WEB.


P.S.
I just hope that expansion would include Hotseat (Must have!) and PBEM (would be nice add-on).

[SpencerH]

I cant see game movement being essentially based on modem speed. Wouldnt a more rational approach be that the movements occur simultaneously once all the data has reached a central game server?

[DrFell]

Which was what I meant by saying unit movement lag needs to be equalised somehow.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I'm not seeing how that would work.

Would one player not involved in the war be able to move their units more than people in the war, as they would not be subject to turn limitations. Would some fast players be in the 1900s, while slower players would still be stuck in BC?

no.... Everyone moves at the same time, when the last person has finished moving their units the next "turn" rolls around. What your thinking of is real time...

[Captain]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I cant see game movement being essentially based on modem speed. Wouldnt a more rational approach be that the movements occur simultaneously once all the data has reached a central game server?

do you mean like it was in Risk 2? every player submits their orders, and then once that's done, the movement is resolved simultaneously. I would think this would be more rational than whoever clicks first has that unit move first.

But it would need a priority list for resolution. Here's my solution.

For example:
player A moves 1 settler and 1 spearman into square (10,10) and a warrior explores square (15, 10) and another attacks player B's city in square (12, 12).
Player B moves 1 warrior into square (10,10) and another towards (15, 10) while retrieving a spearman in (12, 11) into city (12,12).
Player C moves 1 horse into square (15,10) then (15, 9).
Player D moves 1 horse into squares (15, 11) then (15,10).
Player E moves 1 horse into squares (15, 11) then (14,11).

What happens?
i) Conflict in (10, 10) between B's warrior and A's settler/spear combo.
ii) Conflict in B's city square (12,12). Does B's spear reinforce the city before A's warrior attacks?
iii) HUGE Conflict in (15,10). At some point, A, B, C, D and E have units moving onto (15,10). But Who gets there first? Who is defending? Who fights who anyways?


My opinion:

1) Move fastest units along 1st step in path & resolve conflicts.
Player C to (15,10)
Player D to (15,11)
Player E to (15,11)

Both player D and E are moving into the square, therefore they are both ATTACKING. Attack values are used for both, no terrain or fortification bonuses.

Assume Player D kills Player E. Becomes veteran.

2) Move fastest units along 2nd step. Resolve conflicts.
Player C moves to (15,9).
Player D moves to (15,10).

Here player C avoided conflict.

3) Slower units move and resolve any remaining conflicts.
Player A moves warr to (15,10)
Player B moves warr to (15,10).

Player D is already there with wounded veteran horse (3hp). D's horse is defender, gets terrain bonus (plains, 0%). A and B are attacker. Combat resolved like so:
Whoever owns the tile (by culture) takes first shot at all others. Then the others are randomly assigned in sequence.
Let's say no one owns this tile. Therefore, random assignment.

Example:
Player B (3hp) goes first, then D (3hp), then A (3hp).
Player B takes 1 hp off D(2) and A (2).
D takes 1 hp off B(2) and A(1).
A takes 1 hp off B(1) , but not D(1).
B takes 1 hp off D (1), but not A (1).
D misses both.
A takes 1 hp off D (killed) but not B(1).
B takes 1 hp off A (killed).

Player B wins with warrior at 1 hp. Turns veteran and gets 1 hp back (now at 2).

Now player A moved spear settler to (10,10). Player B moved warrior to (10,10). Spear beats warrior. No problem.

If warrior beats spear, it moves onto the tile. Settler captured since it also moved onto tile.

If there is more than 1 defender, attacking unit fights all defenders in sequence until it dies or all defenders die. highest defender goes first, highest attackers go first.

Now player A moves warr to B's city. B pulls in spearman. Since this is B's own city, B plays the defender. It gets city and terrain bonuses, but no "fortified" status. Perhaps this will also give extra value to cultural borders.

all steps 1-3 happen quickly so there's less waiting, but you will be able to see all conflict your troops are involved with. There should be a turn summary report you can view in step 8.

4) Espionage carried out.

5) Border Adjustments (city losses, city growth)
6) Bldgs built. Units built.
7) Techs researched.

8) Give NEW orders. Produces a set of orders for cities, units, and spies. Can be changed anytime before step 9.

8) Open the diplomacy table. Make agreements.

9) Submit set of orders to central server/host for resolution.

Do you think this makes sense? What do you think the order should be?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Captain

do you mean like it was in Risk 2? every player submits their orders, and then once that's done, the movement is resolved simultaneously. I would think this would be more rational than whoever clicks first has that unit move first.

But it would need a priority list for resolution. Here's my solution.



Do you think this makes sense? What do you think the order should be?

Here, here! Listen to this man! Let me call you my "brother in simultaneous execution of turn".

I'm not crazy. Just read the old classic link mentioned in Essential Civ 3 list. (click here to see the concept as ChrisShaffer and me proposed years ago)

[Grrr]

I think that turnless multiplayer is good, but not with the pause and idiotic methods of the first poster.

PBEM and Hotseat are the ways I prefer for MP.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


Here, here! Listen to this man! Let me call you my "brother in simultaneous execution of turn".

I'm not crazy. Just read the old classic link mentioned in Essential Civ 3 list. (click here to see the concept as ChrisShaffer and me proposed years ago)

Hey, what ever happened with that list? It's got some FANTASTIC ideas on it!

Is that the new list that Korn is trying to start up again for the xpansion pack?

btw Adm Naismith, I haven't seen you post in civ3 general for a while. where you been?

Q: how would wonder construction be resolved?