Definitions

tmarcl · February 28, 2001, 01:36

Could someone explain to me the difference (if any) between a multiplayer game (over the internet) and a play by email game? I know the obvious difference (one is in real time, the other requires emailing the game back and forth between players), but what other differences are there?

Marc

finbar · February 28, 2001, 06:35

None.

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

kengel · February 28, 2001, 16:32

Beside the obvious one, you need to know that originally Civ2 MP wasn't made for email games (unfortunately). However, with some tricks it is possible to do it; read here for more details: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum2/HTML/000819.html

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by kengel (edited February 28, 2001).]</font>

drake · February 28, 2001, 16:53

The biggest difference that I find (which is obvious of course) is that there is no diplomacy while in a pbem game. This gets to be a pain later when you want to barter with an ally but cannot because the ai controls your allies. And we all know that the ai doesnt barter according to what their "master" intends......this can be annoying.....

Species8472 · February 28, 2001, 18:49

what is the advantage of pbem above real time multiplayer games that people choose to play pbem?

finbar · February 28, 2001, 18:58

Availability. It overcomes the need for everyone to be online at the same time, which is the fundamental problem with MP games. It would, I suspect, explain why 95% of MP games are never finished.

The reason I avoid email games is the diplomacy problem. During your turn, the other civs are all controlled by the computer.

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by finbar (edited February 28, 2001).]</font>

Species8472 · March 1, 2001, 12:43

besides that it takes a hell of a lot time to send emails and load them into your game.

kengel · March 1, 2001, 17:22

Indeed, diplomacy is the weak point of PBEM games... and still there is lacking a good solution, although you have possibilities to influence the AI control by setting the attitude for other civs in the foreign minister menu.

Practically, diplomacy is mostly done by meeting online (if possible) or with the help of a sub player, but it is still unsatisfying...

On the other side, PBEM is sometimes the only possibility to end a game (or even play any MP game if you are behind a firewall). In an actual game, I have more than 100 cities, a complex system of unit patroling, tons of gold to buy city improvements every turn and and and... An average turn costs me more than two hours. Such games would be annoying to play online, even in simultaneous mode...

My tip: start as an online game, play till turns start to be slower and slower and then switch to PBEM. Still the best way to play civ for people who can only spend 2-3 hours per week

------------------
greets from the Warrior of sky

DaveV · March 2, 2001, 10:30

I agree with kengel that PBEM is a great way to play for people with a limited amount of time to devote to the game - it's ideal if you have a small block of time each day. If you have enough patience and can find a group that keeps the game moving, it's really fun. On the plus side: you have as much time to play your turn as you need; you can save on phone charges if you have to pay by the minute; you have plenty of time for reflection and strategizing between turns.

On the minus side: there are lots of ways to cheat, so you have to play with people you trust; the game moves at a slooow pace; diplomacy must be handled (mostly) outside the game.