TurnLess Multiplayer, implimentation.

[Inverse Icarus]

i used to play a game called "Lords of the Realm" by Sierra. It doesnt work on NT based os's (NT, 2K, XP) so i havent played it in a while.

anyway, it was turn based, but everyone did their turn at once. when you completed your turn, you hit "end turn" and then you just waited until everyone else finished their turn. while you waited you could conduct diplomacy / send tributes / buy goods.

the problem with that was that me and my friend often ended up with "who's going to move their army first" standoffs. each army had a movement limit per turn (about 10 or so if i remember correctly) so if the armies were 11 spaces away from eachother, we had a standoff. no one would move until the other did, or the timer was waning.

it's pretty funny to have 2 opposing armies staring eachother in the face, both decently fortified, constantly getting reinforced by more conscripted troops.

(on a side note, in one such game i built a second army that he didnt notice, and i sieged his main castle. he troops moved back after that one... heh)

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Captain


Q: how would wonder construction be resolved?

great question. especially if 2 players blew a great leader on the same wonder. Firaxis?

[Grrr]

Firaxis should indeed check issues like those outlined in this thread. There could be serious problems. And 'play the world' could be as Beta as Civ III was itself.

[Inverse Icarus]

i know for a fact i wont be using the turnless mode (if goddamned firaxis gives me the option not too before they have to patch it) because me and my friends lan / tcp-ip all the time

and if they dont fix the computer-lag issues, during the time we wait, we can play a game of civ2

[Swissy]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
Could someone explain to me what is turnless multiplayer. I dont get it

This is the question everyone should be asking. Not that Firaxis will answer it, Infogrammes has a knife to their throat ready to slit if they reveal one scrap of information outside of the Infogrammes master marketing plan.

As we post the Infogrammes flunkies are scanning the various Civ boards to determine what we are saying about "turnless" MP and what we expect. They will compare this to what they have already designed and begin their spin.

Using my theory, I believe they have turned Civ3 into a RTS game. But knowing the Civ fans would bring down a load of hurt on them if they revealed this, they will slowly start spinning us until we start to actually like the idea of RTS Civ3. I say this as simo-MP Civ2 was well received and having a similar system for Civ3 would be expected by most Civ fans.

[Hoot]

Lets go with the company line that they didn't want to put out MP until they could do it right. If they've done it right (so soon, in my mind), why haven't they given us any info on this turnless business? Wait, this is starting to sound like a rant...

A turnless turn-based game sounds great, unless its a RTS game. If it is, I'd just as soon play AOE. Maybe its almost-turn-less. Simultaneous on everything that can be done at once, but in turn on everything else. Does that sound like an innovative improvement? Sounds familiar...

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Captain
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?

Not AFAIK, because The List (main and Essential) where quite different from the game we got with Civ III release. No way some patches nor the XP can change that.

XP is too near completion, no way we can suggest things that Firaxis will include.

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

Well, two main things kept me away from the forum:
1) I have a different job (my company had a "spin-off" of Information Technology department) so I'm losing most of my free time for a job I don't like anymore. No good mood for chatting on a game forum.
2) I had put too many hopes in a Civ III as a great step forward in gaming. I had too many hopes in Sid and (early development) Brian.
I play the game somewhat, but I don't like it too much. Many "old forum" people changed their mind (see Velociryx, a great strategist that proved how the game is "broken by design"). So I wander around here sometime, but I don't want to bother people with my opinions, nor start any flame war, so I don't post often.

Q: how would wonder construction be resolved?

I suppose many solution can be found. First, I find silly the concept of "rush building to the end" by great leader: I could admit a leader effect as a percentage of improvement, e.g. a 20% building cost reduction - or shield production improvement.
Second, I'd vote for Wonder twins: if you are building a Great wonder but are unable to finish it, you should chose to switch to a different building, but with a serious penalty (i.e. reuse the material, not the labour), or keep up with the wonder that will end as a minor (local) limited wonder, with reduced benefit vs the full Great wonder.

You shouldn't be able to start this "limited wonder" building after the Great wonder completion: this limit will give a difference versus standard Great /Small wonder tha game already have.

[sekong]

It's all from civ2MP. if you ever play some other MP game like AOE/AOK, there are better solutions. The key is goto function and auto-combat. Else they want to keep civ as a board game.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm against turnless and would prefer the simult solution. Turnless makes the game RTS and everyone knows RTS is a just a mindless clickathon.

[sekong]

Thanks to turnless, I played pretty many civ2MP recently.

Originally posted by UberKruX
i know for a fact i wont be using the turnless mode (if goddamned firaxis gives me the option not too before they have to patch it) because me and my friends lan / tcp-ip all the time

and if they dont fix the computer-lag issues, during the time we wait, we can play a game of civ2

[sekong]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm against turnless and would prefer the simult solution. Turnless makes the game RTS and everyone knows RTS is a just a mindless clickathon.

I guess the "turnless" will be semi-turn, which means close to simult.
RTS is strategy games by the way, just need to be quick. Maybe Markuf would try and like it.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by sekong
RTS is strategy games by the way, just need to be quick. Maybe Markuf would try and like it.

Sekong, we know in RTS strategy has a role (Real Time Strategy, we all know that part of the name ). Fact is, you aren't playing against Human (in MP) or AI strategy (in SP): you are mostly playing against his/her/its speed.

Any modern computer is way more quick than a human clicking around the map, you know. In fact RTS developers have trouble balancing game interface reaction to human command, AI pace of movement, graphics "bells&whistles" and essential part (AI strategy) of the game.

In a turn, or simultaneous execution turn based game, the developer can ignore a part of the equation (computer speed in order execution) in change of a greater attention required about a strong, deep AI (or its best simulation available assuming developers abilities and development money and time constrain).

Playing RTS is like for a human player to accept a sport "handicap" to help the limited AI to be a challenge. Others handicap are often used both in RTS and TBS games, like better AI productions, better AI start position, better results in "random" combat results, etc.

That said, you are perfectly entitled to enjoy to put your speed as your personal "handicap" (I mean this in a sporting sense, of course) against a machine, or to add this part of the challenge against others human player in MP.

But that subtract to the "strategic" part of the game, simply because a defined resurces must be shared to accomplish one more game development target: speed. You can't have the cake and eat it: more attention to the speed, less devoted to strategy (assuming others parts, as sounds&graphics, are equal or better than in TBS).

I must also note that speed element fits very well in tactical simulation (i.e. a soldier platoon attacking an enemy bunker, or similar "commandos" simulation), while it fits less and less in a larger strategic simulation, where in reality you should have many assistant helping you with micromanagement of situation and in game you must do micromanagement by yourself or live with a bunch of fast stupid AI assistant - again, speed in place of smartness.
Of course IMHO, that is.

[sekong]

Adm. Naismith

Thanks for the input. Due to time limit, here is some quick points:
1) Unlike TBS like civ, In RTS, you are not controlling each unit for each movement. You make critical decisions, like goto, building, then the AI will take over and execute yr commands. When you MP with human player, it's a matter of make most important decission in a limited time. It's same for both side. Smart AI/faster computer will help us, not handicap. Of course, in SP, it's not, but we talking about MP here. Therefore each RTS game will be different, depending on their AI and command system. In a good game design, better AI, strategy will play a larger part than speed.
2) Micromanagement: it exists in both RTS and TBS. In RTS, it's about a decission making of how to use yr own time. In TBS, it's a matter of both you and other players' time.
3) In long TBS game like civ, maybe we don't have to compete with speed, instead, we are compete with time. One reason I like RTS, is that it generally take 1-3 hr to finish, which is a reasonable time. For civ, you know how long it takes. Maybe you don't, because most of them are not finished.
4) In conclussion: changes will make MPciv3 game shorter are welcome. One good idea I see recently, is limit MP game in one or two era.