Simultaneous Play for MP

Ming · January 23, 2001, 09:13

Now that SP has been out there for a while...
Who is using SP for MP games?
Are you using any special rules, like combat is done in color order?
What do you like about it?
What do you hate about it?
What's the biggest problem if any?

Enquiring Minds what to know!
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ming (edited January 23, 2001).]</font>

absurddoctor · January 23, 2001, 12:11

I have only recently been talked into using SP. I must confess that I love how fast things can go. However, I hate the little pop up messages, it seems that if someone crashes out of the game, they are unable to get back in, and taking a smoke break is now a lot more dangerous.

AD

Smash · January 23, 2001, 17:11

Well..call me a fuddy duddy,purist or what have you but I don't like it.It may be a little faster but I have never had a problem with the pace of play.Then again,I'll sit 5+ hours at a chessboard so...

My connection is old fashioned 56k dial up and simul was not so good for me.I move a horseman next to settler but I have to wait 3-6 seconds to move again.By that time,the enemy settler has withdrawn to be replaced by an archer and elephant.I lost 4 other "exploration" units like this to diplomats.But a better connection would not change my opinion.

Maybe I am the Dodo bird here.

DaveV · January 23, 2001, 17:48

Count one other slow old geezer on your side, Smash.

The simultaneous game is a completely different game from regular civ - it greatly favors the defender. The attacker has to move his units one at a time, and the defender can just sit there with a diplo active waiting to bribe the first attacker. Then the bribed unit is turned against the rest of the invasion force. Likewise, moving caravels up to drop off a diplo or an invasion force becomes a very dicey proposition if the target city has its own caravel waiting to sally forth. A multi-front attack is mandatory, or else the defender can move a bunch of reinforcements into a city while you're attacking it.

The whole time pressure thing bothered me, too. I made a several key mistakes by trying to rush through my city management. And the lag seemed worse than a regular game.

Simultaneous could greatly speed play for a game with a lot of players when there is no contact, but it's not worth the hassle in my book.

January 23, 2001, 18:30

So far I like it a lot but I can see how it will change tactics and some of you will need to upgrade your modem

But was it ever realistic that you could move an army or fleet up to a city and the defenders just sat there like stunned mullet and did nothing? Diplo guiding was even more ridiculous.

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

January 23, 2001, 18:41

Yeah I gotta agree with Smash and Dave - like I said in many other posts you simply can't use SIMUL in wars.

I love it for speeding up the developing parts of the game but when it comes to war and playing the game of CivMP that I love to play, with all it's strategy and planning, SIMUL simply makes a mockery of it.
The connection variables are another set of problems but not the only ones.

I think a lot of gung-ho egotists who badly need a dose of a 3d shooter and who like to mostly defend in Civ, will love SIMUL

But really it's another game, it's not CivMP with all it's wonderful turn-based strategy. It's the same reason I prefer Civ to AoE.

A lot of folks are following the line of playing SIMUL to speed up the game but resorting to turn-based or at least honouring the turn order once war is declared. This is great.

But there are clearly a whole range of bugs on top of the existing bugs that make SIMUL very suspect.
The main ones are:
* the game hanging and thereby losing time saved with the SIMUL turns!
* losing units supported by a city that clearly can support units;
* and a whole host of cheating stuff that the programmers won't reveal

But loophole civ detectives will soon work them out to the disadvantage of the rest of us

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by deity (edited January 23, 2001).]</font>

Curumbor Elendil · January 23, 2001, 19:16

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-23-2001 05:30 PM</font>
But was it ever realistic that you could move an army or fleet up to a city and the defenders just sat there like stunned mullet and did nothing?

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Well, actually, I think so. After all, included in the defense rating and hit/fire ratings is the possibility of a counterattack. The battle is supposed to represent both the attack and the counterattack. Granted, the defender lacks the tactical advantage of being able to move units during the attack, which isn't apparently realistic, but maybe it actually is. After all, each square on the world map represents hundreds of miles in diameter. So during a surprise attack it shouldn't be the case that far-away units can come to the rescue.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

January 23, 2001, 19:32

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Curumbor Elendil on 01-23-2001 06:16 PM</font>

So during a surprise attack it shouldn't be the case that far-away units can come to the rescue.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

So what your saying is that if a city had a catapult they would just sit there greasing the wheels whilst the enemy landed troops right next to the city and then rolled up settlers who built a fort right under their nose and fortified it? Such landings were always contested in history if the defender had the troops and was half competent. Never happens in turn based.

I think the only players this change inconveniences are those who prefer unrealistic pristine training ground manoeuvres to the reality of war which is confusion, mistakes, time pressures, fast decisions on incomplete information, real time harrassment of action and disasters. This is called "the fog of war" and makes simult far more realistic than turn based.

As for cheats and bugs, there are plenty of those in turns based. We have simply developed protocols to deal with them. The real problem here is not simult but the need for a recasting of tactics for the more dynamic environment. I have given this some thought and can already see different ways things will need to be done. But I'm not sharing those thoughts with you

And I can see that some people are going to hate it and will be loathe to adapt. They will lose wars

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited January 23, 2001).]</font>

Ming · January 23, 2001, 19:37

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-23-2001 06:32 PM</font>
I have given this some thought and can already see different ways things will need to be done. But I'm not sharing those thoughts with you

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Yes, heaven forbid that you might post something useful for others

But seriously, you do raise some good points.
As mentioned by DaveV... it does turn it into a different game. It's interesting to see how some like it, and others don't.

Smash · January 23, 2001, 19:40

Yes those are good points and it might breath new life into an "old" game but I kinda like things the way they are.Maybe this is why I'm not too excited about civ3.
If I want to play a real time war game there are much better ones than civ.Civ is not a war game.

January 23, 2001, 19:42

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Ming on 01-23-2001 06:37 PM</font>

Yes, heaven forbid that you might post something useful for others

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Well first off Ming I haven't play tested the ideas. And secondly I'm in a couple of simult games with Deity, in one of which he has been a naughty boy, so guess who I might be testing those ideas out on if he keeps misbehaving

We in the Australian group think Deity's concerns may stem partly from a, shall we say, guilty conscience. And since he never hosts well, he may pay for that under this new system.

His inability to host is probably a strong unstated motivation in his position. Its understandable.

I don't think its rocket science to work out the things that won't work. One thing is, war will probably become more of a feature of the early and late game rather than the middle bit where offensive and defensive units are more in balance. Hence the balance shifts to the defender under simult during the middle eras.

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited January 23, 2001).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited January 23, 2001).]</font>

finbar · January 23, 2001, 19:54

I want my dang settler back! The one the software disbanded claiming it wasn't supported when it bloody well was!

*starts a petition, then tears it up, deciding he doesn't want to be lumped in with the plethora of idiot petition starters in these forums*

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591

War4ever · January 23, 2001, 19:58

Valid points by all. I have noticed lag is horrible with players whom do not have cable or dsl... oh well... same with the regular play of the game.

Trust again should eliminate all the bugs we run in to.... don't play with groups who are suspect by nature...

Simul allows for many 7 player games to happen which IMO are the best way to civ.

I like the way combat goes... I must say i agree with AH theory in that defenders should be able to launch a counter attack whilst defending. However host advantage and lag can take out some of the fun of this i guess. I say stack those troops.

This all said, i still prefer the origional style of play , i just believe both styles are flawed .

Agreed on the fact that civ isn't a war game and i don't really like AOE, perhaps this new twist in civving is a fad or perhaps its here to say.

One thing i will say is that simul - tbs is like King - deity... there is no fair way to compare.....

------------------
Back from hell....i have nothing to lose

January 23, 2001, 20:07

Actually the players I can see being really inconvenienced by this are the warmongers. The bar is definitely raised for them. Boo Hoo!

Since Deity has a spotless rep

I really can't see why he objects

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

finbar · January 23, 2001, 20:12

"Lips, Do Not Unpurse"

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591

January 23, 2001, 22:44

I should come clean here and say that I support simult primarily because it saves time. There is nothing worse than sitting for hours waiting for other players to take their turns. I'm prepared to at least try and put up with its weaknesses for the sake of a faster game.

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

January 23, 2001, 23:45

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-23-2001 09:44 PM</font>
I should come clean here and say that I support simult primarily because it saves time. There is nothing worse than sitting for hours waiting for other players to take their turns. I'm prepared to at least try and put up with its weaknesses for the sake of a faster game.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

It suits you AH because you don't attack humans

You play games involving AI so you can snaffle them up; then put up the defenders preparing for a human attack. SIMUL really suits you, especially as a cable host!

How have I been naughty? Please explain!
My rep is spotless and power supreme

Especially in Mosman....

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

January 24, 2001, 00:00

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by deity on 01-23-2001 10:45 PM</font>

It suits you AH because you don't attack humans

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

That's right - I'm not a warmonger. But I attack them if they attack me so, your point?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>

You play games involving AI so you can snaffle them up; then put up the defenders preparing for a human attack.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

No, actually as you well know, we include ai civs so people can hotjoin games. They are a nuisance, I would rather play without them.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>

SIMUL really suits you, especially as a cable host!

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Er, I don't have cable

I have a standard 56K modem.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>

How have I been naughty? Please explain!
My rep is spotless and power supreme

Especially in Mosman....

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Your forces are occuppying my territory around "Peaceful Horse". Your reputation is "spotless" only in your own mind

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

Carolus Rex · January 24, 2001, 07:47

The good thing is getting well into AD in a couple of hours with 7 players, the bad thing is that fighting is unfair. Not so much because it favours the defender (speaking as one

), but because connection and lag play such an important role for the outcome.

The problem with fighting in simu games is nicely illustrated by my own preferences.

If I play at home, I hate it... (56 K modem)

If I play at my department, it's ok (T3, or 10 megabits/second I think).

Still, another conservative here. Civ should be played turnbased!

Carolus

January 24, 2001, 18:28

Actually I don't care which style we play - I just like to play

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

War4ever · January 24, 2001, 21:01

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-24-2001 05:28 PM</font>
Actually I don't care which style we play - I just like to play

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Finally something we can agree on

It must be the new year

------------------
Back from hell....i have nothing to lose

January 24, 2001, 21:09

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by War4ever on 01-24-2001 08:01 PM</font>
Finally something we can agree on

It must be the new year

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I wasn't aware that we had ever disagreed

But I squabble with so many

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

Curumbor Elendil · January 25, 2001, 10:00

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-23-2001 06:32 PM</font>
So what your saying is that if a city had a catapult they would just sit there greasing the wheels whilst the enemy landed troops right next to the city and then rolled up settlers who built a fort right under their nose and fortified it? Such landings were always contested in history if the defender had the troops and was half competent. Never happens in turn based.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Well, if the catapult is about 100 miles away, it probably would never get there in time.

It at least needs to be in the general "region" of the fortress to be a factor (this year).

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
I think the only players this change inconveniences are those who prefer unrealistic pristine training ground manoeuvres to the reality of war which is confusion, mistakes, time pressures, fast decisions on incomplete information, real time harrassment of action and disasters. This is called "the fog of war" and makes simult far more realistic than turn based.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I do well in simultaneous, especially when I'm host.
>-) Eyes of Night quit because I was picking off his invaders so well. I also had a huge advantage in another duel, with Carnide. I don't think it was quite fair.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

KenThur · January 27, 2001, 22:33

Dave V & Car.Rex say it best for moi` also.

As a hardcore, enjoy the game as it is fan + as quasi-perfectionist, i rejected it initially for the reasons cited above. Especially the parts about having an excellent dialup connection & yet some broadbander's cursor strokes get to the host & acted on 1st... while i'm pounding away furiuosly on my keyboard watching my unit(s) being whooped... & it happens on defense AND offense.

However:
I would really encourage players to use it up to when serious battles start.
It is so efficient time-wise because as soon as U finish YOUR city mgt. YOUR own computer will calc all your stuff & release U to start on your next turn's mgt... until such time as EVERYONE is finished with theirs & released.
Assuming unlimited or better yet, high limit, timer setting. Timer on IS better due to the drops & naps that DO occur.

(note: Dave... U do NOT have to rush your mgt & make those stupid haste-makes-waste kind of errors. Just don't release, anyone else that has finished their mgt for the turn U R still working on is gainfully occupied setting up for the next turn)

------------------
"Hm-m-m, doubt me you will?"